The Scriptures Must Be Fulfilled, Which Means a One-World Religion and Government Will Be Established

"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent." - Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950 (click here for other quotes)

Despite Research Dispute, the White House Believes 'Climate Change Is Happening'

By Tony Romm, The Hill
November 30, 2009

The White House on Monday made exceptionally clear that it wants nothing to do with the furor over documents that global warming skeptics say prove the phenomenon is not a threat.

Despite the incident, which rocked international headlines last week, climate science is sound, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed this afternoon, and the White House nonetheless believes "climate change is happening."

"I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," he said during Monday's press briefing.

Climate change skeptics have asserted over the past week that the publication of more than 1,000 private e-mails and documents once housed in the University of East Anglia's computer system refutes most modern global warming evidence.

The documents, unearthed by a blogger who hacked into Climate Research Unit's (CRU) private system, have since touched off an international debate over the veracity of those scientists' works.

But the dispute is proving especially troublesome for the Obama administration as it prepares to head to Copenhagen next week for a climate change summit -- a forum the president will attend.

Not only has the White House faced criticism from the left for offering too few concessions ahead of the meet, it is now fielding dissatisfaction from the right for participating in a summit sponsored in part by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- one of the research organs touched by the CRU spat.

"I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of this," responded Gibbs to questions about those scientists' credibility.

Nevertheless, congressional Republicans this week hope to ramp up their criticism of both global warming policy and the science that informs it.

Most vocal seems to be Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe demanded on Friday a hearing into the IPCC's research to determine whether it "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."

"[T]his thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with," he told reporters, noting it was "interesting" the e-mails surfaced before the Copenhagen summit.

The Meaning of Climategate

By William Anderson, LewRockwell.com
December 12, 2009

Almost anyone who can read has heard about the "Climategate" scandal in which emails between the scientists that have been at the forefront of promoting the apocalyptic views of "climate change" were hacked and then made public. The snippets I have read confirm my worst fears, as we are seeing exactly what happens when the political process completely hijacks science.

As an Austrian economist, I don't worship at the feet of the "scientific community," in large part because the "scientific community" is able to engage in trickery but defend its actions in the name of "preserving science." However, because of my own experience in publishing papers in refereed journals and knowing the experiences of others, I can see what has been happening over the past decade in "climate science," and I can tell you that while it is not rigged, it is close to being so.

Modern science is all about receiving grants, and the biggest checkbooks are those wielded by governments, and governments expect certain results. For example, the government two decades ago funded research into the alleged "acid rain" problems, and the researchers reached very different conclusions than what the U.S. Government, and especially Congress and the George H.W. Bush administration (and his William Reilly-led EPA), had wanted to see.

Acid rain, apparently, was not going to destroy U.S. forests, lakes, and rivers; and the government was ticked, really ticked. The EPA attempted to destroy the career of one scientist, Edward Krug, who had a paper in the prestigious Science in 1983 that demonstrated that lakes with high acidity were located in watersheds where the soil happened to be acidic. Furthermore, as Krug and other researchers noted, acid lakes existed in many places around the globe hundreds of years before "industrial society" became the norm.

This researched "watershed-based" conclusion (which now is the accepted theory of lake and stream acidification, not "acid rain") was unacceptable to the EPA, and the agency engaged in a shameful campaign against Krug, something I documented in a January, 1992, cover story article in Reason. During my research for the article, one person told me that there would be no such government study for "global warming," indicating that the government would ramrod through the policies it wanted whether or not they actually were necessary.

However politicized "acid rain" might be, it did not fire up the environmentalist and leftist communities like "global warming" (later changed to "climate change").

This was not the first time that the environmentalists had tried to claim that capitalism was creating hazards with the weather. In 1975, Newsweek had a cover story in which it claimed that industrial society was pushing the globe into a new Ice Age. However, in a move that mirrored George Orwell's 1984 (in which the people of Oceania are told that they are not at war with Eurasia, but rather East Asia, and that Goldstein had tricked them), in little more than a decade, the movement had turned not from cooling but to warming.

All the movement needed was a figurehead, and to the forefront came two men, James Hansen, a NASA scientist, and Al Gore, who had been a U.S. Senator, Vice-President to Bill Clinton, and the loser of a highly-controversial U.S. Presidential election. Gore already had published his apocalyptic tome, Earth in the Balance, before becoming Veep, in which he claimed that industrial society was killing the planet and only a global "Marshall Plan" complete with near-dictatorship by the authorities could "save" us.

Gore had latched onto the "global warming" mantra in the late 1980s and championed Hansen, who told a congressional committee in 1988 that a drought that year was being caused by "unprecedented global warming." (The summer of 1989 was cool and wet, but the True Believers also laid that situation at the feet of "climate change.") However, the people-are-causing "global warming" advocates needed something to jump-start their campaign, and three researchers, including Michael E. Mann of Penn State, came to the rescue with the infamous "hockey stick" study.

Anyone who was familiar with the history of climate is familiar with the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago, as well as the "Little Ice Age," a period of cooling that lasted from the mid-1500s to the late 1800s. These periods of warming and cooling occurred long before what we know as a modern economy with its supposed "spewing" of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which means that both of these climate patterns could not have been caused by human activity.

Obviously, this was of huge concern to those who claim that people are causing the changes in temperature, so the "scientists" simply made the Medieval Warm Period disappear by tricking the data. In 1999, three scientists, including Mann, published a paper which showed average global temperatures to be relatively steady for thousands of years, but suddenly shooting up in the last few decades, a "hockey stick" approach. Gore and his environmental allies now had the ammunition they needed.

In his Oscar-winning movie, An Inconvenient Truth (which departed from the truth in many places), Gore used the "hockey stick" graph as "proof" that the discussion over global warming needed to end. The results were in, and now what was needed was action, ACTION! The fact that the scientists refused to release the data used in their study, which is a fundamental breach of what is supposed to be scientific method, was shooed away as being something akin to a conspiracy theory by the "deniers," who were labeled Enemies of the People. Scientists who dissented found themselves being bullied (journals refusing to publish their papers) and being denounced by environmentalists, other scientists, government officials and, of course, Gore and Hansen. (Both Gore and Hansen have called for criminal prosecutions of corporate executives of companies that have helped to fund any study that disagrees with what Gore and Hansen declare to be the truth.)

In the Climategate emails, the scientists described their strategy of reviewing each others' papers, shutting down scientists who disagreed, hiding their data, and admitting to fudging the numbers in order to obtain the results they wanted. Furthermore, because many of them were using funds allocated by U.S. Government agencies, what they did was fraud, and many people have gone to prison for much less.

Austrian economists are quite familiar with the drill here. First, the advocates of a position, be it mainstream economics or human-caused climate change, make sure that no dissenting papers can be published. Second, after having successfully shut out the opposition, they claim that the theories of the Austrians or dissenters "fail the market test" because their views don't appear in the mainstream literature. The logic is circular, but it sure appeals to the True Believers.

It is interesting to see the response of Gore, the New York Times, the White House, and others who have been demanding that modern life be shut down for an economic regime that is more to the liking of the global-warming crowd. (The economic and political elites pushing these bogus theories have wonderful futures planned for us; they just have no intention of joining us for meals in unheated buildings, while we eat our gruel. Heated and cooled residences with plenty of good food will be their future.)

So far, the response from The Usual Suspects has been a repeat of the "Wizard of Oz" in which the Wiz bellows, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" The New York Times recently editorialized:

The theft of thousands of private e-mail messages and files from computer servers at a leading British climate research center has been a political windfall for skeptics who claim the documents prove that mainstream scientists have conspired to overstate the case for human influence on climate change.

They are using the e-mail to blast the Obama administration's climate policies. And they clearly hope that the e-mail will undermine negotiations for a new climate change treaty that begin in Copenhagen this week.

No one should be misled by all the noise. The e-mail messages represent years' worth of exchanges among prominent American and British climatologists. Some are mean-spirited, others intemperate. But they don't change the underlying scientific facts about climate change.

Funny, when the Times runs stories using material that has been stolen, they never refer to it as "stolen." Indeed, as one who has published many academic papers (and I always make my data available for inspection), I can smell a fix as well as the next person.

Of course, with the Times, it only gets better. The public editor who defended the newspaper's abysmal and utterly dishonest coverage in the infamous Duke Lacrosse Non-Rape Case, had this to say about the recent events:

As for not posting the e-mail, Revkin said he should have used better language in his blog, Dot Earth, to explain the decision, which was driven by advice from a Times attorney. The lawyer, George Freeman, told me that there is a large legal distinction between government documents like the Pentagon Papers, which the Times published over the objections of the Nixon administration, and e-mail between private individuals, even if they may receive some government money for their work. He said the Constitution protects the publication of leaked government information, as long as it is newsworthy and the media did not obtain it illegally. But the purloined e-mail, he said, was covered by copyright law in the United States and Britain.

This is a howler, a real howler. This is the same New York Times that gleefully published illegal leaks from federal prosecutors in the Michael Milken and Martha Stewart cases, which meant that the newspaper was aiding and abetting the commission of real felonies. The Times
is a newspaper that does what it wants from publishing illegal (and untrue) material to seizing property by eminent domain so the paper could build a brand new headquarters in Manhattan. The idea that the paper suddenly decided to be "law-abiding" by not breaking "copyright law" is a joke, a real joke. Please do not tell me that the 800-pound gorilla is afraid of a few mice!

As governments are meeting in Denmark for yet another "climate change" summit, I am reminded that what really is happening is that the economic and political elites have decided they have had enough of the rabble and are going to put us in our places. That their actions are violent and fraudulent and have been duly exposed clearly is not a hindrance to them.

Keep in mind that I am not presenting my own "hockey stick" view of global temperatures. Indeed, for the last century or so, global temperatures have risen, but one must remember that the period preceding them was very cold, and cold weather means crop failures and starvation. Furthermore, the issue is not whether we have seen changes in temperatures around the world, but whether or not the human issuance of a gas that makes up approximately 0.4 of one percent of the atmosphere is the cause.

However, instead of wanting to know the truth, the elites have decided what we are supposed to believe as the truth. In my view, the release of these emails is as important in exposing the dishonesty of the "climate change" crowd as the Pentagon Papers were in exposing the dishonesty of the U.S. Government as it was ravaging Vietnam.

William L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him mail], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland, and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He also is a consultant with American Economic Services. Visit his blog.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Climate Smokescreen At the New York Times

By K. Daniel Glover, Accuracy In Media
November 25, 2009

When holier-than-thou New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin decided not to publish e-mails that expose climate scientists as frauds because they were obtained illegally, Times watchers (including this one) rightly cried “Hypocrisy!”

One recent and one distant case of the newspaper rejecting Revkin’s new standard of journalistic ethics leapt to mind. In December 2005, the Times ran a front-page expose on the Bush administration’s covert wiretapping program against presumed terrorists even after being warned that it could jeopardize national security. And in 1971, the Times made history by publishing the Pentagon Papers about U.S. military involvement in Vietnam.

But a far better example of the paper’s hypocrisy has escaped notice — until now. In May 1994, the Times published a series of stories about the tobacco industry that were based on the pre-Internet equivalent of leaked e-mails. The paper’s coverage later led to a book by reporter Philip J. Hilts titled Smokescreen: The Truth Behind The Tobacco Industry Cover-up.

The circumstances surrounding the tobacco industry then and the climate science community now are remarkably similar, yet the Times reached exact opposite conclusions about how to cover the news. This time Revkin and the paper, as well as much of the mainstream media, have created a smokescreen to protect fraudulent scientists whose agenda they support.

Tobacco Under Fire

Democrats began targeting the tobacco industry after Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., led the charge as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment.

Waxman’s probe led to a dramatic April 14, 1994 hearing where top executives from tobacco companies swore under oath that nicotine is not addictive. At about the same time, a whistleblower contacted Hilts and handed over internal memorandums that proved the Brown & Williamson tobacco company had known the health dangers of tobacco for decades.

Like “hide the decline” from the hacked global warming e-mails, the Brown & Williamson documents had a memorable money quote:

“Moreover, nicotine is addictive… We are, then, in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug.”

Hilts described the revelations in an interview with PBS for its “Smoke In The Eye” special:

Once we got these papers in hand, it became very clear that they knew a lot very early on, that they were deliberately hiding things, and that they were deliberately trying to keep them out of court and so on — at the same time saying these things were not true, saying cigarettes are not addictive, and yet they have their own studies which show how addictive it is and exactly how the addiction works and so on… They did all kinds of studies on the hazards of cigarettes and inhalation of tobacco and so on and found a lot of problems. Well, we never heard about this, but they knew it all early on.

Brown & Williamson, along with the rest of the tobacco industry, understandably wanted to quash publicity of the documents. The company convinced a judge in tobacco-friendly Kentucky to impose an injunction against their release because Merrill Williams, a temporary paralegal assigned to Brown & Williamson, allegedly stole them.

The company felt compelled to fight release of the documents.

“They’ve been hiding this for years,” Hilts told PBS. “It would make them lose case after case in court.”

But the Times, motivated by a commitment to journalistic integrity and the First Amendment, defied the injunction and published its stories.

“Oddly enough there were virtually no legal concerns at the Times,” Hilts said, adding that “all the way along, the lawyers … were very supportive. They really wanted to see the stories in the paper.”

Hilts criticized ABC for not reporting on the documents even though the network had them before he did.

“Lawyers for the entertainment business are more skittish, are more difficult,” he told PBS, “and in fact they get involved in the news more, probably more than they should… I don’t think, in newspapers, reporters would put up with that.”

Hot Global Warming E-mails

Print reporters without links to the entertainment industry may well be more committed to battling media lawyers in order to break major news, but they clearly are not immune to self-censorship. Unlike Hilts, Revkin chose not to post the global warming e-mails.

His defense:

“The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye.”

If Hilts and other journalists had neglected their duty like Revkin and company are in covering “ClimateGate,” the tobacco industry never would have been forced to settle with state prosecutors in 1998 and might not have been subjected to federal regulation this year.

Michael Moore, the former Mississippi attorney general who led the legal fight against the tobacco industry in the 1990s, called the Brown & Williamson papers “probably still the most damming documents ever produced against the industry.” Hilts said they “probably are the single-most important pieces of paper in the history of tobacco versus public health.”

The global warming e-mails revealed last week are just as significant. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” climate expert Patrick Michaels said. Even British writer and environmental activist George Monbiot acknowledged that the e-mails are a “major blow” and urged Phil Jones, the head of the climate research unit that was hacked, to resign.

The timing of the climate e-mail hacking also is reminiscent of the tobacco timeline in 1994 — and thus equally newsworthy. Just as whistleblowers started pushing documents into the media while the Food and Drug Administration and Congress weighed tobacco regulation, the global warming e-mails were posted online days before world leaders gather in Copenhagen next month to ponder draconian rules to limit carbon dioxide emissions.

And as with the tobacco documents, the global warming e-mails focus on scientific research.

“These behind-the-scenes discussions among leading global-warming exponents are remarkable both in their candor and in their sheer contempt for scientific objectivity,” Rochester Institute of Technology professor Ivan Kenneally wrote in The New Atlantis.

“There can be little doubt after even a casual perusal that the scientific case for global warming and the policy that springs from it are based upon a volatile combination of political ideology, unapologetic mendacity and simmering contempt for even the best-intentioned disagreement.”

It’s the News Judgment, Stupid

The hacking angle to ClimateGate is a legitimate one to pursue, but it is not the most important angle. The appropriate response is for journalists at The New York Times and elsewhere to behave as they did after Hilts exposed the stolen tobacco documents in 1994.

“We had more papers after that,” Hilts said. “We went around and found more stuff. More people started coming out of the woodwork and so on. So it was a pivotal moment.”

Fourteen years ago, the Times scolded CBS for self-censorship when it decided to spike an interview with tobacco whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand, who later became the central character in the 1999 movie “The Insider.” The network later reversed course and aired the interview.

Hopefully Andrew Revkin and the Times will redeem themselves and do likewise by giving the global warming e-mails the scrutiny they deserve.

(Author’s note: I covered the 1994 tobacco debate for Congressional Quarterly and attended the game-changing hearings with Hilts. Thanks to blogger James Joyner for jogging my memory.)

K. Daniel Glover is the online communications strategist for Accuracy In Media. He has worked as an editor, writer and new media specialist in the Washington area since 1991, spending most of that time at National Journal and Congressional Quarterly.

Who’s to Blame for Climategate?

By Gordon Rayner, Telegraph
November 27, 2009

The drab, drum-shaped home of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit is an anonymous little outpost, blending seamlessly with its chunky concrete neighbours on a windswept campus just outside Norwich. To the uninitiated, it has the look of a Seventies bus station waiting for the council to pull it down.

Unlikely as it may seem, however, this little corner of East Anglia is now ground zero in a controversy which just might influence the entire future of our planet.

A little over a week ago, hundreds of internal emails written by scientists working at the CRU were obtained by a hacker and posted on the internet, some of which appeared to show that researchers had deliberately faked evidence of global warming by manipulating statistics.

At first, the fallout was restricted to a row between climate change experts, played out in scientific journals and specialist internet blogs, but in the past few days, as the ripples have spread around the globe, “Climategate” has become a white hot political issue which has been seized upon by global warming sceptics and now threatens to overshadow next month’s crucial climate change conference in Copenhagen...

Phil Jones, the 57-year-old director of the CRU, is the man who has suddenly found himself the number one target of climate change conspiracy theorists the world over after he sent the most damaging of all the emails exposed by the anonymous hacker.

In one message, dated November 1999, he wrote:

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

Gotcha! say the global warming sceptics who have argued for years that average temperatures on Earth are, in reality, either stable or going down. Professor Jones defended himself by claiming the word “trick” was used out of context and simply referred to a legitimate method of handling data. But there was more.

An email sent by one of Prof Jones’s colleagues said:

“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.”

Prof Jones, whose department has for years refused to release its raw data on temperatures, wrote another email in which he said:

Sceptics “have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”

By chance, he now admits he has “accidentally” deleted some of the raw data.

Another message said the CRU’s method of collating data “renders the station counts totally meaningless… so, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

Prof Jones, who at first refused to confirm even that the emails were genuine, finally issued a statement on Wednesday, in which he said:

“My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well.”

On that point, at least, no one is likely to argue with him.

Although Prof Jones is not what you could call a household name (though he soon might be) he is, without doubt, one of the world’s most influential proponents of the theory of man-made global warming.

The CRU has the largest archive of global temperature data in the world, and its research formed the basis of the United Nations’ key document on global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of 2007.

But Prof Jones has been embroiled in controversy before. Three years ago, a report commissioned by the US House of Representatives energy and commerce committee claimed that a clique of just 43 scientists, including Prof Jones and one of his CRU colleagues, was stifling open debate on climate change.

Little wonder, then, that climate change deniers are hailing the emails as final proof that global warming is nothing more than a hoax which is being covered up by governments who have themselves been duped.

Suddenly, Phil Jones is the name on the lips of every Right-wing commentator in the US, some of whom have warned that President Obama is being tricked into making the most expensive mistake in history by backing emission caps and carbon trading legislation that will cost US taxpayers trillions of dollars.

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News has described the emails as a “game-changer” for Obama cap and trade bills. Fox’s climate change commentator, John Lott, suggested that Prof Jones was guilty of an “unprecedented co-ordinated campaign to hide scientific information.” Meanwhile Matt Drudge, arguably the most influential reporter on the internet and the man who broke the story of President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, has helped direct millions of hits to websites reporting on the email scandal by featuring it prominently on his Drudge Report website...

Prof Jones is in little doubt that the timing of the leak – two weeks before the start of the Copenhagen conference – was a “concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change” at the most sensitive possible time. Next month’s Copenhagen conference has been billed as the last chance for world leaders to prevent an irreversible change to the planet’s climate. Unless they can reach a binding agreement on reducing global emissions, mankind could face a bleak future, according to the majority of the scientific community.

The hacker who exposed the emails no doubt hopes Climategate will tip the scales decisively against an agreement – an outcome which is likely to be supported by a minority of hardliners in the US, such as Bryan Zumwalt, legislative counsel for Republican senator David Vitter, who said earlier this week that:

The CRU emails were evidence of what “could well be the greatest act of scientific fraud in history” and suggested that “nearly all of the international data and models supporting the theory of global warming would have been influenced by data corruption and fraud.”

However Bob Ward, a climate change expert at the London School of Economics and Political Science, believes world leaders will pay little attention to the scandal surrounding the CRU, arguing that politics, not science, will decide the fate of the Copenhagen summit.

“The politicians won’t be swayed by this,” he said. “It’s basic physics that the world is being warmed by greenhouse gases, and politicians can see through the sceptics’ arguments. If Copenhagen fails to produce an agreement, it won’t be because of these emails. And in the US, President Obama’s cap and trade bills will be decided by 12 or 13 Democratic senators who represent states with large coal and oil reserves.”

Mr Ward does not believe the emails reveal any evidence of impropriety, but supported Lord Lawson’s calls for an independent investigation so the matter can be cleared up. He said:

“I don’t believe there is any evidence here of fraud, but it’s regrettable that this has happened and I regret the fact that some members of the research community have dismissed out of hand those who have tried to make a counter-argument.”

Whether or not Climategate influences the outcome of the Copenhagen summit, it seems that its long-term legacy will be to make the ongoing war of words between “warmists” and “coolists” more poisonous than ever.

United Nations to Probe Climate E-Mail Leak
UN says climate finale may have happy ending
Copenhagen: 'long way to go' to convince sceptics
Ambitious carbon pricing won't hurt recovery, says IMF
U.N. summit in Copenhagen to pave way for global government
Obama to Use EPA to Declare CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant
Historic EPA Finding: Greenhouse Gases Harm Humans
Climate treaty endangers U.S.
Climategate: Obama’s rule by EPA decree is a coup d’etat against Congress, made in Britain
UK’s richest man could make more than £1bn from carbon trading scheme

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

United Nations' Climate Change Shakedown

Science or Nonscience?

By Clifford F. Thies, Mises Daily
December 5, 2009

Hacked or possibly leaked emails appear to indicate that a lot of what passes for climate-change science is propaganda. Data appears to have been filtered, altered or falsified in order to deny the obvious:

The earth is not continuing to warm up in accordance with climate change models; global temperature has been fluctuating for hundreds of thousands of years due to natural variation; and the earth is no warmer nowadays than it has been at several prior times in history.

The black mark earned by alarmists during the 1970s, for predicting continued global cooling, may be replicated for global-warming alarmists. The real tragedy, however, may be that -- one day -- scientists will cry wolf to a public that has learned to ignore them.

By now, anybody who is serious about the possibility of global warming knows that the "hockey-stick" theory promulgated by the UN a few years ago is bunk.

This theory held that there was no meaningful variation in global temperature during the past several thousand years until recently, when capitalism began to harness industrial power. That this theory was advanced by a scientist who was a socialist might raise a question about its validity.

"Science" is not, as some people imagine, memorizing a list of facts (such as the names of the planets). Nor is the progress of science determined by laboratory experiments. This is because, at the edge of our knowledge, accepted laboratory experiments don't exist and, in certain fields, laboratory experiments might not even be possible. Rather, the progress of science is determined by free inquiry, open discussion, and transparency among those engaged in a discipline.

There should be no pretense that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an unbiased organization. It was formed by the United Nations specifically to study "the risk of human-induced climate change." The guilty party is, thus, pre-identified and all that remains is to collect the evidence.

Periodic reports of the IPCC proclaimed, ever more authoritatively, that the trend of global warming that was occurring at the time was due to human activity.

The second report, in 1996, said "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate change."

The third, in 2001, presented "new and stronger evidence." This report included the hockey stick and the whacky idea that the trend of rising global temperature over the prior three centuries (or, since the so-called "Little Ice Age") was due to human activity.

The fourth, in 2007, which dropped the most embarrassing claims, nevertheless claimed that "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

This all seemed plausible at the time because of the warming trend. But, recently, global temperatures have been moderating and, besides, as the emails show, scientists were altering the evidence all the while.

Now You See It

Below I have a chart with the history of global temperature as it was known at the time of the 2001 report. As the chart makes clear, global temperature began to recover from the Little Ice Age about three hundred years ago. Juxtaposed against the rising trend are several cycles of 30 to 40 years length, including the one I show in red, which caused a lot of alarmists during the 1970s to say that industrial activity was causing global cooling.

Now You Don't

Publishing the actual history of global temperature would question the hypothesis that human activity was causing it to rise. Or, to quote an email of one of the supposedly esteemed scientists promoting the UN climate change agenda, it would provide "fodder" for the "skeptics." So, here is the chart that they published.

When, following its publication by the UN, the hockey-stick theory was reviewed by the National Academy of Science, it was found to be "not inconsistent" with the data available at the time. This is a fancy way of saying that no more than the usual amount of subjective interpretation was involved. A scientist who is a socialist will of course tend to stop investigating when he has "proved" that capitalism, by enabling a growing population to live at increasingly higher standards of living, is actually a bad thing. Contrariwise, a scientist who is a capitalist will have the opposite tendency.

In spite of these prejudices, there is hope for progress in science because, as long as we have free inquiry, the data will eventually have its turn to speak. This kind of give-and-take goes on all the time in scientific disciplines. But hiding evidence, as we now know was being done, is academic fraud. It should cause the National Academy of Sciences to reconsider its exoneration of the errors in the hockey-stick theory.

So What Do the Data Say?

A great deal of data has been gathered since the UN began its "bum rush" on free enterprise. First, we have much more evidence of natural variation from the past, based on a wide variety of proxies for temperature. During the past few thousand years, there were two periods during which global temperature was as high or higher than it now is.

Correlating warm and cool periods with what we know about history, warmer times have been times of human flourishing, expanding economic activity, scientific progress, and cultural expression. And cooler times have been times of starvation, disease, and the collapse of civilization. If we could control global temperature, our focus would be more on avoiding global cooling than it would be on avoiding global warming.

Second, we know that, at least thus far, we really don't know much about the causes of climate change. The computer models that incorporate the greenhouse-gas theory are being massively contradicted by current readings. That is, CO2 is continuing to build up in the atmosphere, and yet global temperature is moderating rather than continuing to rise.

It might be, as the historical evidence can be interpreted as suggesting, that variation of CO2 in the atmosphere is an effect rather than a cause of global temperature, since CO2 levels appear to lag variation in global temperature.

The issue is certainly deserving of continuing study.

Third, we know that the scaremongers associated with the IPCC cannot be trusted. As important as the planet is, we need a community of climatologists that is not precommitted to a theory or -- worse yet -- to a policy prescription. The UN agenda is obviously driven by the many despotic nations of the world that seek to use climate change to shake down the wealthy nations of the world, in concert with an intellectual elite that favors socialism over capitalism and with special-interest groups seeking massive government subsidies. The Kyoto Treaty, which imposes limits only on certain nations (the wealthier ones), could never work, since it will only shift industrial activity to nations without limits (the poorer ones), with no net reduction in carbon emissions.

Finally, we know that, with regard to all scarce resources, a market approach is to be preferred to a socialist approach, especially a one-world-government socialist approach.

A market approach to environmental policy would not only achieve whatever goals are set efficiently, given the technologies currently available; it will induce the discovery of new technologies, making what seems costly and maybe even impossible today achievable with increasingly higher standards of living tomorrow.

Unlike socialism, capitalism does not rely on fear. Capitalism relies on belief, belief in the inexhaustible creativity of free persons.

Clifford F. Thies is the Eldon R. Lindsay Chair of Free Enterprise at Shenandoah University in Winchester, VA. Send him mail. See Clifford F. Thies's article archives.

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

You Want to Talk About a Carbon Footprint?

Carbon Capitalists Warming to Climate Market Using Derivatives

Estimates of the potential size of the U.S. cap-and-trade market range from $300 billion to $2 trillion.

By Lisa Kassenaar, Bloomberg
December 4, 2009

Across Uganda, thousands of women warm supper over new, $8 orange-painted stoves. The clay-and- metal pots burn about two-thirds the charcoal of the open-fire cooking typical of East Africa, where forests are being chopped down in the struggle to feed the region’s 125 million people.

Four thousand miles away, at the Charles Hurst Land Rover dealership in southwest London, a Range Rover Vogue sells for 90,000 pounds ($151,000). A blue windshield sticker proclaims that the gasoline-powered truck’s first 45,000 miles (72,421 kilometers) will be carbon neutral.

That’s because Land Rover, official purveyor of 4x4s to Queen Elizabeth II, is helping Ugandans cut their greenhouse gas emissions with those new stoves.

These two worlds came together in the offices of Blythe Masters at JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Masters, 40, oversees the New York bank’s environmental businesses as the firm’s global head of commodities. JPMorgan brokered a deal in 2007 for Land Rover to buy carbon credits from ClimateCare, an Oxford, England-based group that develops energy-efficiency projects around the world. Land Rover, now owned by Mumbai-based Tata Motors Ltd., is using the credits to offset some of the CO2 emissions produced by its vehicles.

For Wall Street, these kinds of voluntary carbon deals are just a dress rehearsal for the day when the U.S. develops a mandatory trading program for greenhouse gas emissions. JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and Morgan Stanley [a spinoff of JPMorgan] will be watching closely as 192 nations gather in Copenhagen next week to try to forge a new climate-change treaty that would, for the first time, include the U.S. and China.

U.S. Cap and Trade

Those two economies are the biggest emitters of CO2, the most ubiquitous of the gases found to cause global warming. The Kyoto Protocol, whose emissions targets will expire in 2012, spawned a carbon-trading system in Europe that the banks hope will be replicated in the U.S.

The U.S. Senate is debating a clean-energy bill that would introduce cap and trade for U.S. emissions. A similar bill passed the House of Representatives in June. The plan would transform U.S. industry by forcing the biggest companies -- such as utilities, oil and gas drillers and cement makers -- to calculate the amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases they emit and then pay for them.

Estimates of the potential size of the U.S. cap-and-trade market range from $300 billion to $2 trillion.

Banks Moving In

Banks intend to become the intermediaries in this fledgling market. Although U.S. carbon legislation may not pass for a year or more, Wall Street has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lobbyists and making deals with companies that can supply them with “carbon offsets” to sell to clients.

JPMorgan, for instance, purchased ClimateCare in early 2008 for an undisclosed sum. This month, it paid $210 million for Eco-Securities Group Plc, the biggest developer of projects used to generate credits offsetting government-regulated carbon emissions. Financial institutions have also been investing in alternative energy, such as wind and solar power, and lending to clean-technology entrepreneurs.

The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.

Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity -- in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

‘Heavy Involvement’

“This requires a massive redirection of capital,” Masters says. “You can’t have a successful climate policy without the heavy, heavy involvement of financial institutions.”

As a young London banker in the early 1990s, Masters was part of JPMorgan’s team developing ideas for transferring risk to third parties. She went on to manage credit risk for JPMorgan’s investment bank.

Among the credit derivatives that grew from the bank’s early efforts was the credit-default swap. A CDS is a contract that functions like insurance by protecting debt holders against default. In 2008, after U.S. home prices plunged, the cost of protection against subprime-mortgage bond defaults jumped. Insurer American International Group Inc., which had sold billions in CDSs, was forced into government ownership, roiling markets and helping trigger the worst global recession since the 1930s.

Lawmakers Leery

Now, that story -- and the entire role the banks played in the credit crisis -- has become central to the U.S. carbon debate. Washington lawmakers are leery of handing Wall Street anything new to trade because the bitter taste of the credit debacle lingers. And their focus is on derivatives. Along with CDSs, the most-notorious derivatives are the collateralized-debt obligations they often insured. CDOs are bundles of subprime mortgages and other debt that were sliced into tranches and sold to investors.

“People are going to be cutting up carbon futures, and we’ll be in trouble,” says Maria Cantwell, a Democratic senator from Washington state. “You can’t stay ahead of the next tool they’re going to create.”

Cantwell, 51, proposed in November that U.S. state governments be given the right to ban unregulated financial products.

“The derivatives market has done so much damage to our economy and is nothing more than a very-high-stakes casino -- except that casinos have to abide by regulations,” she wrote in a press release.

Jet Fuel, Wheat

In carbon markets, many of the derivatives would be futures, options and swaps that would allow a company to lock in a price for carbon like it would for any other commodity related to its business, Masters says. Such derivatives are negotiated every day by airlines trying to guarantee future prices for jet fuel and farmers setting a future price for their wheat crop. A large, liquid market in carbon credits would serve to keep their price low, JPMorgan says.

“The reason why this is important is not because it’s going to create a new forum for us to buy and sell; it’s because the scale of what’s being contemplated here is absolutely enormous,” Masters says. “It’s going to affect your kids and my kids. The worst thing would be to introduce legislation that doesn’t achieve the environmental goal; that would be a crime of epic proportions.”

Not Convinced

Michelle Chan, a senior policy analyst in San Francisco for Friends of the Earth, isn’t convinced.

“Should we really create a new $2 trillion market when we haven’t yet finished the job of revamping and testing new financial regulation?” she asks. Chan says that, given their recent history, the banks’ ability to turn climate change into a new commodities market should be curbed.

“What we have just been woken up to in the credit crisis -- to a jarring and shocking degree -- is what happens in the real world,” she says.

Even George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund operator, says money managers would find ways to manipulate cap-and-trade markets.

“The system can be gamed,” Soros, 79, remarked at a London School of Economics seminar in July. “That’s why financial types like me like it -- because there are financial opportunities.”

Masters says U.S. carbon markets should be transparent and regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Standardized derivatives contracts -- securities that can be bought and sold by anyone -- should be traded on exchanges or centrally cleared, she says. The British-born Masters, who has an economics degree from Cambridge University, took over JPMorgan’s commodities business in 2007.

Allowances, Offsets

In a U.S. cap-and-trade market, the government would allot tradable pollution permits, called allowances, to emitters of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The market would also likely include offsets -- credits generated by companies such as Eco-Securities that would have to demonstrate to U.S. agencies running the program that the offsets mitigate carbon pollution.

Point Carbon, an Oslo-based firm that analyzes environmental markets, estimates that by 2020 the U.S. carbon market could surge to more than $300 billion. That’s based on an assumption that the allowances, each representing a ton of carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere, would trade for $15. Bart Chilton, a commissioner of the CFTC, which would likely be one of the regulators of the carbon market, says it could grow as large as $2 trillion.

Goldman Building

As they wait for a U.S. cap-and-trade system to be introduced, the big banks are busy building, not trading. Goldman Sachs, for example, has fewer than 10 traders dedicated to carbon around the world.

“Carbon right now is not about sitting in front of a screen and clicking,” says Gerrit Nicholas, Goldman’s head of North American environmental commodities. “It’s all about running around talking to clients about what they can expect, how big it can be and what their risk is.”

Abyd Karmali, who heads global carbon emissions at Bank of America Merrill Lynch in London, says companies, banks and investors are all watching Congress.

“A lot of people are focused on Copenhagen, but what happens in Washington on federal cap and trade is, arguably, more important,” says Karmali, who’s president of the Carbon Markets and Investors Association, an international trade group. “This market is still in its very early stages. U.S. cap and trade would make an order of magnitude of difference.”

‘Ruinous Course’

Although U.S. President Barack Obama and his economic team support cap and trade, Washington politics could defeat it. The House bill passed in June by just seven votes, and senators on both sides of the aisle worry that imposing pollution caps on industry will result in higher energy bills for consumers at a time when U.S. unemployment tops 10 percent. Karl Rove, former president George W. Bush’s deputy chief of staff, wrote in Newsweek magazine in November that cap and trade “would put America on a ruinous course.”

Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who in 2006 called Nobel Prize winner and former Vice President Al Gore “full of crap” on global warming, boycotted committee meetings on the Senate bill in November.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Nov. 18 that climate-change legislation may not be discussed until the spring, prompting speculation among others in the Senate that the bill won’t be passed before Congressional elections in 2010. The Obama administration is also driving to overhaul U.S. health care and develop proposals to push down unemployment.

House, Senate Bills

U.S. cap and trade, as currently configured in both the House and Senate bills, would mean the government sets an upper limit on emissions of seven greenhouse gases, including CO2, methane and nitrous oxide, for thousands of power plants, refineries and factories. Over time, the caps would fall, pushing emitters to adopt clean-air technology.

The government would give some pollution allowances to companies free to help them meet their caps during the first years of the program. Emitters who invest in cutting their pollution would have allowances to sell; those that don’t would have to buy.

The allowances -- similar to those that sold in Europe in mid-November for 13.5 euros ($20) -- would be tradable on an exchange or, if Congress allows it, between parties in an over-the-counter market. The credits garnered through offset projects such as the stoves in Uganda are distinct from allowances in that they may be generated on the other side of the world.

Accounting for Carbon

U.S. companies would account for carbon in long-term strategic plans, bankers say. For instance, utilities such as American Electric Power Co., which produces power from coal, would hedge the price of carbon over periods as long as a decade or more. Columbus, Ohio-based AEP is the biggest U.S. greenhouse gas emitter in the Standard & Poor’s 500, according to the London-based Carbon Disclosure Project, which collects such data. Companies like AEP would retain financial institutions to come up with customized derivatives contracts to help them manage their risk.

Derivatives contracts designed for a particular company or transaction, known as over-the-counter derivatives, are a hot-button issue in the larger debate over how the U.S. banking system should be regulated. Most CDSs and CDOs are OTC derivatives. They are created and traded privately -- not on any exchange -- and can be illiquid and opaque, says Andy Stevenson, a financial analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group that supports the Senate legislation. The House cap-and-trade bill bans OTC derivatives, requiring that all carbon trading be done on exchanges.

OTC Derivatives

The bankers say such a ban would be a mistake. OTC derivatives are a $600 trillion market, much of which consists of interest-rate swaps designed to hedge risks for individual companies.

“It’s a concern of ours if they limit the market,” says Pat Hemlepp, a spokesman for AEP. “It reduces the options when it comes to cap and trade, and we have told people that on the Hill. We do feel it’s best to have banks and other parties able to participate.”

The banks and companies may get their way on carbon derivatives in separate legislation now being worked out in Congress. In October, the House Financial Services Committee, headed by Representative Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts, approved a bill that would require collateral for all derivatives trading between financial institutions. And broker-dealers such as JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs would be forced to clear most derivatives contracts on regulated exchanges or through so-called swap-execution facilities. However, the new rules would not apply to end-users -- companies such as AEP that use derivatives to hedge operational risks.

Price Collar

The Senate environment bill, dubbed Kerry-Boxer for Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer of California, the two Democrats who introduced it, contains little detail on how the cap-and-trade market would work. It sets a price floor of $11 per ton on carbon. The bill also creates a strategic reserve of allowances that the government could use to flood the market if the price of carbon shoots up.

“It will be the best-regulated market in the country,” Stevenson says. “The effort is to make all of the trading known to the regulator. That wasn’t the case in the mortgage market.”

Wall Street sees profits at every stage of the carbon-trading process. Banks would make money by helping clients manage their carbon risk, by trading carbon for their own accounts and by making loans to companies that invest to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Chicago Climate Exchange

A clear U.S. price on carbon, determined in a large market, would help drive billions of dollars into investments to clean the air, says Richard Sandor, founder and chairman of the Chicago Climate Exchange and the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange. He is also the principal architect of the interest-rate futures market.

“What’s important is the price signal,” Sandor says. “It will stimulate inventive activity and cause behavior to change.”

The Chicago Climate Exchange, the biggest U.S. voluntary greenhouse-gas-emissions trading system, trades 180,000 tons of carbon a day, up from 40,000 tons in 2006.

Over time, carbon, like other commodities, needs markets linked around the world, Goldman’s Nicholas says.

“If you believe the science and that something needs to be done about this, the market probably needs to be big,” he says. “Carbon could become an important commodity. I’m not saying it will be bigger than others, but it will be another important business for us.”

Polluters Only

Critics, including Senator Cantwell, espouse a smaller, less complex market in which pollution permits would be publicly exchanged only among fossil-fuel producers. Such a system may block progress on the environmental goals, says JPMorgan’s Masters.

“We say, ‘Let’s incentivize people to have the lowest-cost opportunities to avoid carbon emissions,’” she says.

Masters has been dealing with complex securities since she did a summer internship on JPMorgan’s London derivatives desk while she was at Cambridge. She joined the desk full time soon after graduating in 1991. The derivatives group’s task was to find ways to spread the risk of JPMorgan’s loans, partly to reduce the amount of capital it was required to hold in reserve against them.

Offloading Risk

In 1994, Exxon Corp. needed a credit line after it was threatened with a $5 billion fine for spilling 10.8 million gallons (40.9 million liters) of oil into the ocean off Alaska in 1989. Masters asked the London-based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to take on the Exxon risk in exchange for an annual fee paid by JPMorgan, according to “Fool’s Gold,” a book by Gillian Tett (Free Press, 2009) that chronicles the history of credit derivatives at JPMorgan. The loan would remain on JPMorgan’s books and be insured by the EBRD, an international bank owned by 61 countries that supports development projects in Central Europe.

The bankers called the contract a credit-default swap.

Masters left the credit derivatives unit in 2001 to do other jobs at the bank. From 2004 to 2007, she served as chief financial officer of the investment bank. Since she took over the commodities division in 2007, its staff has almost doubled to 400 employees. The firm added Bear Energy to the division when it acquired Bear Stearns Cos. in the March 2008 heat of the credit crisis.

In December 2008, Masters led the purchase of UBS AG’s agriculture business and Canadian commodities operations. She now sits in a corner office in Bear’s former Madison Avenue tower. Outside her glass door are rows of traders making markets in metals and oil futures.

Subprime Carbon

Friends of the Earth’s Chan is working hard to prevent the banks from adding carbon to their repertoire. She titled a March FOE report “Subprime Carbon?” In testimony on Capitol Hill, she warned:

“Wall Street won’t just be brokering in plain carbon derivatives -- they’ll get creative.”

Sitting in Cafe Madeleine, a small sandwich shop on a hilly stretch of California Street in San Francisco, Chan, 37, talks over coffee about her campaign. She’s brought her own ceramic mug from her crammed office across the street.

Chan started at FOE -- the biggest network of environmental groups in the world, with offices in 77 countries -- on a six- month fellowship after she graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1994. Her first job was to pin responsibility for what FOE regarded as environmentally damaging projects on the banks that loaned the enterprises money.

Three Gorges Dam

In 1997, Chan uncovered and helped publicize loans to China’s Three Gorges Dam by banks including Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch. Since then, Wall Street banks have sought Friends of the Earth’s help in burnishing their environmental image.

In 2005, Chan worked with Goldman Sachs to write an environmental policy statement for the firm, she says.

Carbon isn’t like other commodities, Chan says. The government’s goal to reduce pollution means it will gradually diminish the number of allowances it issues, and that will be a powerful incentive for speculators to try to corner the market and drive up the price, she says.

While banks say they’re a long way from packaging securities from environmental credits now, Chan points to two deals that Zurich-based Credit Suisse Group AG completed in 2007 and 2008 that each combined more than 20 different offset projects, then sliced them into tranches and sold them to investors. The securities were the equivalent of carbon CDOs, Chan says.

Boom and Bust

Chan has an ally in hedge fund manager Michael Masters, founder of Masters Capital Management LLC, based in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. He says speculators will end up controlling U.S. carbon prices, and their participation could trigger the same type of boom-and-bust cycles that have buffeted other commodities.

In February 2009 House testimony, Masters -- who is no relation to Blythe Masters -- estimated that the early 2008 price bubbles in crude oil, corn and other commodities cost U.S. consumers more than $110 billion.

The hedge fund manager says that banks will attempt to inflate the carbon market by recruiting investors from hedge funds and pension funds.

“Wall Street is going to sell it as an investment product to people that have nothing to do with carbon,” he says. “Then suddenly investment managers are dominating the asset class, and nothing is related to actual supply and demand. We have seen this movie before.”

Companies Need Banks

Still, companies need the financial markets to help them drive down their greenhouse gas emissions at a reasonable price, says the NRDC’s Stevenson.

“There are trillions of dollars needed to make this transition, and companies need the banks,” says Stevenson, a former trader for London-based hedge fund firm Brevan Howard Asset Management LLP.

Stevenson dismisses as overblown the concern that banks will soon be packaging greenhouse gas allowances into securities that look like CDOs. The banks stand to make more money, he says, as lenders to companies that need to invest in new power plants and factories to reduce their emissions.

“I would argue that this is only a bonanza for the banks in that they get to go back to their day jobs -- which is lending money,” Stevenson says. “I’m suspect of them generating a lot from carbon trading itself in the early years.”

Northeast Test Case

A relatively small-scale cap-and-trade effort called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative tells a cautionary tale. RGGI is a CO2 reduction program established by a group of northeastern and mid-Atlantic states in 2003 with a goal of cutting CO2 emissions from power plants in the region 10 percent by 2018. Ten states are now members. Trading in the companies’ pollution permits began in September 2008 -- in the middle of the financial crisis. As of mid-November 2009, prices of the pollution permits were down 50 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Meanwhile, the 10 best-performing investment funds with climate change or clean energy as a central goal all plunged 40 percent or more in 2008, according to data compiled by London- based New Energy Finance. The shrinking global economy sapped momentum for developing new environmental projects.

“To mobilize capital now and begin a transformation to new energy technologies is a very risky business,” says Ken Newcombe, founder of C-Quest Capital, a Washington-based carbon finance business that invests in offsets. “Returns have to be reasonable to take on those risks.”

Risk Capital Vital

Newcombe is the former head of Goldman’s U.S. carbon market origination and sales department and one of the world’s first carbon traders. He holds a Ph.D. in energy and natural resource development from the Australian National University. Private money, including capital from banks, hedge funds and other investors, must keep flowing into the system to realize global environmental goals that the Copenhagen meetings will try to hash out, he says.

“The ultimate objective is economic efficiency,” Newcombe says. “How can we reduce the cost of implementing important public policy? Having a pool of risk capital is absolutely vital to the smooth introduction of a cap-and-trade regime in the U.S.”

As Washington debates climate policy in the shadow of the recent financial meltdown, lawmakers have a right to be wary, Newcombe says.

“There’s legitimate concern that there may be unseemly profits or untenable risks,” he says. “But a problem now is that the critical objective of stabilizing the financial system could lead to an overregulation of the carbon market.”

‘Such a Fog’

Meanwhile, the industrial firms that would be affected by cap and trade are eager for the game to begin, says Lew Nash, a Morgan Stanley executive director and the firm’s U.S. point person on the carbon markets.

“There is such a fog right now in terms of how the legislation is going to work,” Nash says. “There is a real economic desire here for price signals that will permit the market to properly price carbon. Our customers have little choice but to participate in this evolving market.”

Nash says his clients aren’t just looking for help figuring out how to use carbon trading to manage their emissions caps. Pricing carbon will also set the tone for strategic investments. If a company wants to build a new factory, for instance, it’s going to need to factor prospective carbon emissions into its construction and operational plans, Nash says.

Supporters of cap and trade see, over many years, a remaking of the U.S. industrial landscape and a sharp reduction in the gases that cause global warming. Little will happen, though, until the debate is resolved between the bankers who want more liquidity.

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

The Elite’s Plan to Rule the World

There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men: a man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease. - Ecclesiastes 6:1-2

Can America Stop the Coming Oppression?

By J. Hapiak, People for Freedom
December 1, 2009

Could Climategate Unravel the UN’s Plan to Rule the World?

In a matter of days, President Obama will write a brand new chapter in American history, one that fulfils the promise of change that the Americans asked for, but not necessarily the change that they hoped for. What I am speaking about is the Copenhagen Climate Treaty that President Obama had promised to sign around December 9, 2009, that could forever surrender American sovereignty.

Now with the emergence of Climategate as reported all over the internet, and Senator Inhofe’s calling for an investigation into that matter, which implies that the top UN climate scientists had cooked the science of climate change for profit . . . the signing of this document has been supposedly postponed, but the President still has plans to make the trip to Copenhagen anyhow.

Will President Obama sign this treaty behind closed doors despite the allegations that Climate Change may be a fraud? Will he sign it like President George W. Bush signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership* (SPP) in Ottawa, in secret? No one knows for sure.

The mainstream media isn’t saying much about anything, and they certainly aren’t warning the American people that this treaty is less about the climate and more about establishing an international carbon tax and finalizing the framework for a new layer of government, one that is international in scope and whose “rules of law” will govern the conduct of all UN member nations. What else they aren’t saying is that there will be no pulling back out of this agreement without the unanimous consent of every UN member nation.

This movement has been fueled for many decades, but it went virtually unnoticed until 1991 when George H. W. Bush announced to Congress the coming of a New World Order, the first steps to setting up a global community and changing the way America conducts its business forever. A few months later on February 1, 1992, he made another speech to the United Nations General Assembly, and stated:

“It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.”

Ever since making this declaration, every other elected President has endorsed the same allegiance to the United Nations without the consent of the American people or Congress.

The United Nations

Since its inception, the UN has demonstrated a long train of abuses against all member and non-member nations alike, which suggests that once they are in charge, the possibility is there that they can and will exploit any government they choose by pressuring them to sponsor their cause, not by freedom of choice, but through coercion. With most of the G20 nation heads still promising to sign this climate treaty, the UN and the international banking system, according to some, will be able to finally establish themselves as the supreme authority, second to no other government in the world.

America was born on the principle that promised our nation would always remain free and independent. It was hopeful that all other nations would adopt the same principles. But throughout history, there has always been an underlying desire by a select few to control the world, and some of these individuals have found that if they can control the issuance of fractional currency and lend it out with interest, in time, they can burden whole nations with accumulated debt and could actually get political leaders to wager collateral in exchange for the money they need to keep their nations economy afloat.

Debt and a nation's continuous need for more money gave international bankers an easy way to pressure our government into signing agreements like NAFTA, the WTO, Agenda 21, Codex Alimentarious, Universal Health Care in exchange for a loan. What wasn’t known by the American people then is certainly well known now, that these agreements have forced all nations to incrementally transfer – directly into the hands of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank - control of their:

1. Assets like property, rivers, lakes, natural resources; and


2. The power over trade, agriculture, manufacturing, cyber security, media communication, healthcare, military, gold reserves, politicians and even the rights of its people.

This in effect, puts the entire American economy, the laws of the nation, and collateral under the control of the private Federal Reserve System, outside the reaches of the US Government. In the United Kingdom the story is the same: the control of the nation's assets and power over the people were transferred to the Bank of England. In fact, all over the world, nations are now signing agreements and giving up everything to the central banking system in exchange for more loans.

What is planned next is most likely the consolidation of all central banks in the world and placing them under the control of the UN and the IMF / Bank of the World. According to the draft agenda of London’s G20 Summit held in March 2009, they have already started the process of making these changes. The Copenhagen Climate Treaty could likely be one instrument they need to make that transformation complete and permanent.

Who Controls the Money Controls Everything

Thomas Jefferson warned the Congress about this very problem and, in one quote, he implied that the lenders are more menacing to our freedoms than a standing army. And that’s why our founding fathers were adamant that the United States issue their own “interest free” currency, and the reason is clear - so America would never become a slave to debt or to the lenders. Yet that all changed in 1913, when the Senate ratified, with minimal debate or opposition, the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve System, with a 2/3 majority vote during the Christmas vacation, and after the Senate had already broke for the Holiday.

Many opponents felt that the New York bankers Morgan and Rockefeller and also Paul Warburg, who was directly connected to the Bank of England, duped the United States. Soon after the Federal Reserve System was formed, officials from the Bank of England were quick to establish the League of Nations, which in 1945 became the United Nations. They were also connected to forming the International Money Fund (IMF) in 1944.

Chartered in 1694, the privately-owned Bank of England happens to be the same banking cartel that pressured King George III to pay back his European war debt. By 1742, the Parliament passed the British Resumption Act that required all taxes and debts be paid in gold. In order for the King to pay just the interest on his debt to the Bank of England, he imposed huge taxes on the American colonies and required them to pay in gold as well.

With shortages of gold in the colonies, this change caused a long term depression, so the colonies began experimenting with different types of currencies and eventually settled on a fiat currency, called Colonial Scrip, which brought about a new age of prosperity. When officials from the Bank of England learned about their newfound wealth, they questioned Benjamin Franklin and discovered that the colonies learned the benefits of issuing their own currency and how currency works. As a result, the Currency Act of 1764 was quickly passed, thus prohibiting the Colonial officials from issuing their own currency. This made Colonial Scrip worthless and again drove the colonies back into a depression.

The oppressive laws of the King along with the depression that was caused by the Bank of England . . . eventually led the Colonialists to declare independence from England and their European bankers. Soon afterwards, England attacked the Colonies and the Revolutionary War began . . . But it didn’t end there. That battle for power still goes on today.

In March of 2009, President Obama attended the G20 summit meeting in London. According to the G20 draft agenda, they discussed the Coordination of International Regulation which, in effect, places the control of the Federal Reserve System, Securities and Exchange Commission, the collateral that the institution controls, and the entire American economy under the control of Europe’s IMF / Bank of the World. The IMF is rooted directly to the same group of lenders that the Colonies fought off 250 years before.

How the UN Retains Control of the Nations

The UN/IMF has accomplished many tasks that they set forth by using agreements and treaties like the WTO and Agenda 21 to control all manufacturing and agricultural output throughout the world. The treaties and agreements encourage international trade instead of supporting local trade, thus profiting no one except for the corporate leaders and also the banking elite who control the financial institutions and lend money to the large corporations and governments at interest.

The UN/IMF seeks dominion by controlling the elements of power that naturally propel a nation forward. Don’t be fooled, the ideology of the World Trade Organization is not about creating an environment that encourages new competition and business growth locally, but rather it is an engineered plan to stop small business growth and to create international duopolies and monopolies formed from business mergers and consolidation that can be easily controlled by the international bankers.

Instead of new competition growing out of invention, the international treaties and agreements are inhibiting this growth by distancing the very supply lines that are needed locally by the entrepreneurs who possess the new ideas and can build the new companies. As a result, today’s entrepreneurs cannot easily obtain access to the raw materials, supplies, engineers, skilled trades people, or the machines that they need to develop new products without traveling abroad to foreign lands and making huge investments that often involve banks and foreign partnerships. This means new competition can never grow like it once did in America from the kitchen table to a garage, shop or factory without a huge input of borrowed cash, thus slowing down the invention process and stopping manufacturing growth forever.

For over 200 years the strong and powerful American market was protected by tariffs and quotas. When the American economy slowed, tariffs were artificially raised by the government in order to increase the price of foreign imports. This helped to keep American manufacturing competitive locally, while stimulating manufacturing and protecting jobs at the same time. Foreign countries that wanted to sell their products in the huge American market had two choices:

1. Either pay the tariffs to America, or
2. Pay the workers in their country more money so they could afford to buy the American-made products.

As a result, this ideology created fairer trade and raised the standard of living in every nation that we traded with, such as South Korea, England, France, Germany, Belgium, Japan, Taiwan, Israel, to name a few.

The Change of Ideology

The progressive NAFTA and the WTO agreements turned the old protectionist way that America traded, inside out. Under this new international rule of law, the UN is now in control of American trade and enforces it by penalizing the United States with trade sanctions, fines and other deterrents every single time that America tries to collect tariffs or set quotas on imports, or tries to pre-qualify our trading partners with certain rules. The UN/WTO agreement allows most UN member nations to flood the American market with cheap imports, which only undermines American manufacturing and the middle class at its core.

George Carlin - Who Owns You?

Through compliance of international regulation and law, the UN/IMF rewards one nation with prosperity, while it punishes other nations for not conforming to their rule of law. This is not a freedom of choice, but rather extortion that is imposed on countries by the UN/IMF. When all manufacturing is eventually controlled by this select few, then the elitists will continue to have all the money they need to loan while the masses under this socialist rule remain unemployed, poor and servants to the banks. If we don’t stop this atrocity now, then under this form of government, contraction of the economy and the merging of all nations will never cease until there is only one left standing, and that will be the UN, its banking system called the IMF, and their few industries that they control in the world.

The Progressive Ideology Takes Hold in the Fed and at the State Level Against the People

Taking its lead from the United Nations, now the Federal Government is doing the same thing to the States in the Union. If the states won’t comply with the international rule of law, then the Federal Government threatens to cut the states funding for projects, Medicare, unemployment etc. This is not freedom of choice; this again is coercion to get the states to cooperate.

In turn, the states comply to the UN mandates and imposes new laws that work toward building a police state by militarizing the police, requiring a thumb print to acquire a driver's license, creating checkpoints on the highways, disrupting and arresting protestors, allowing illegal search and seizure and the confiscation of weapons against innocent American citizens, such as in the events that occurred in New Orleans. The list goes on and on. This again is not freedom of choice, but rather coercion to control the masses.

Our founding fathers believed that manufacturing is the tree where wealth and a nation's security grows from invention. But according to the international bankers, a debt-based economy and borrowing money against personal assets is the wave of the future. This fascist approach to government only compounds the problems because it disposes the natural abilities of every person, while it empowers the international bankers who are all socialists.

I am urging all Americans to remember that there is a ray of hope for America and that is Article VI of the US Constitution and the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which empowers the states and the people to throw off the government or to abolish the government and replace it in its in entirety.

Even though the states have the power to tell Washington to take a hike, we must remember that Washington still holds the purse strings and can retaliate by blocking the funds that the states need for projects, Medicare, unemployment, etc.

Other abuses against the states include the UN’s WTO mandate that forces the US government to keep tariffs on imports intentionally low. The WTO dismantles the states ability to manufacture goods and stay competitive within our own American market, thus reducing the job opportunities that are needed by the American people while increasing the pressure on the states for more welfare funding at the same time.

In other words, the WTO agreement starts an unending downward spiral that slows the economy and makes the American people more dependent on the states welfare program, thus forcing the states to become compliant with the global movement so they can still acquire more welfare funding from Washington.

If the States are divided and begin seceding from the Union, they can lose their vested interest and protection from the other Union States. If a state secedes, what stops UN troops from invading the shores and capturing the state and its resources? Nothing!

This means Washington or the UN can pick off the defectors one by one. This means that the states must stand together and cannot be divided, and they must not secede from the Union at any cost, and they must use their united power to overturn the Fed and these ridiculous agreements and treaties.

It is essential that all American people begin throwing off their two-party affiliation and start taking the time to thoroughly research all candidates and only vote for people at the federal, state and local level who are wholeheartedly in support of the US Constitution and not the globalist agenda.

Under the WTO, our nation's production is pushed to the side and the American economy is constantly shrinking, making Washington more dependent on borrowed money from the international bankers just to keep the nation's economy stimulated. This creates more debt that will be compounded with interest, thus driving up taxes at the same time on the American people who are already being enslaved. Without production, the debt can’t be paid. This is a no-win situation if the states don’t stand up against the socialist Federal Government and the United Nations and also their treaties and agreements that promote international taxation while preventing the US from collecting tariffs and setting quotas on foreign imports. Under this regime, the American citizens lose all the way around.

If things don’t change, this is the bottom line . . .

Under the WTO, the states must become compliant with the United Nations mandates in order for them to continue receiving welfare funding from Washington for the people. Under this agreement the States must also support and make preparations to adopt the following:

1) The Codex Alimentarious (UN takeover of the food code and classifying vitamins as toxins, while making outlawed toxins legal)

2) Universal Health Care (UN takeover of health care, population control, firearms control)

3) Agenda 21 (UN takeover of America’s agricultural output, farmland and water rights, relocation of people)

4) World Trade Organization (UN takeover of all manufacturing and trade)

5) Security and Prosperity Partnership* (open borders with Canada and Mexico, the forming of the North American Union and creating a gold or silver backed universal currency)

6) Cap-and-Trade and the Copenhagen Climate Agenda (UN takeover of all taxation, transportation, energy, etc.)

7) Coordination of International Regulation (The UN takeover of the Federal Reserve System, the Securities and Exchange Commission, all issuing of currency, all government loans, collateral and the economy).

The list goes on and on . . .

Let the truth be known to all: Until the American people realize that the United Nations is the oppressor, despotism will always be on our doorstep.

* The Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas, which some have dubbed PPA, was first launched by the Bush administration in September of 2008 in an effort to further deepen existing economic partnerships in the region. Many speculated that it was a last ditch effort by Bush to resurrect a revised version of the failed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The Obama administration has continued with the PPA and is set to re-launch and expand the initiative which would lead to greater integration in the Americas. Some aspects of the PPA are similar to the defunct Security and Prosperity Partnership and could spread SPP objectives to other parts of the Western Hemisphere. - Dana Gabriel, Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas, Borderfire Report, September 7, 2009

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

The Invisible Government of the Ruling Elite Exercises Its Total Control from Behind the Scenes

“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.” - Herman Von Rompuy, President of the European Union effective January 1, 2010

Wake Up, America!

By Stephen Byers, Sr., Pravda
December 4, 2009

To My Fellow Americans,

“I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.” – General Douglas MacArthur

What exactly did General MacArthur mean? Let me try to explain.

The United States was founded as a Constitutional Republic based on liberty and the unalienable rights of the individual, and where the government exercised its limited power and authority with the consent of “we the people.”

But slowly, over the course of the past 100 years, “invisible” forces have turned us into a socialist “Democracy” where government is the Ultimate power and authority, where every action of our lives is legislated and restricted, and where Rights are becoming nonexistent.

If that sounds like an absurd statement, then think about this: the United States, a supposed Free society, has a population of 300 Million; yet this Free society has a total of 2.3 million adults held in prison, or one in every 99.1 adults. That puts the U.S. far head of ANY other country, including Communist China, a supposed repressive society; China has a population of 1.3 Billion people, yet they have only 1.5 million people behind bars.

To those who believe that we continue to be a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” and that the government is limited in its power and authority as enumerated in the Constitution, I say take the blinders off your eyes and wake up! If you do, and honestly seek the truth, this is what you will see: that today the true seat of Power in Washington is the “Invisible Government,” which exercises its total control from behind the scenes.

Who is this Invisible Government? It is a small elite group of individuals who own and control the Giant International Banks and Corporations, and who exercise their control through the Military-Industrial Complex. Through their foundations and organizations, like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission, they train and groom those who would be the “movers and shakers” of both U.S. political parties. In other words, they own and control the Republican and Democratic parties.



In his book, “With No Apologies,” former Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater wrote:

“The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future.”

In 1961, John F. Kennedy warned in a speech:

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence – on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”

Sadly, Kennedy ignored his own advice, took these people on, and was “silenced”!

The Invisible Government also owns and controls the Media. In 1915 JP Morgan interests and their subsidiary organizations purchased the editorial policies of the 25 most important newspapers in the United States. By controlling the policy of the most important newspapers, they were able to control the general policy of the whole media. The Rockefellers eventually took over the Morgan empire. They gained control of the Associated Press. They also own the trend-setting magazines Time, Life, Fortune, and Newsweek. The “elite” own and control ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.

In 1991, the founder of the CFR, David Rockefeller, praised the major media for their complicity in helping to facilitate the globalist agenda by saying:

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

This criminal cabal of power elites, banks, corporations, government officials, and the mainstream media have effectively destroyed our economy and the foundation of constitutional government which we have taken for granted.

These evil people have stolen the wealth of the U.S. Treasury whilst exploiting the power and might of the U.S. Military to achieve their agenda. Meanwhile, corrupt government officials continue to pass unconstitutional laws to the benefit of themselves and the elite. They believe our Constitution and Laws don’t pertain to them.

It is imperative everyone know that both political parties are controlled by the “Invisible Government,” and that our presidential election is a fraud between their two preselected candidates. Their “man” always wins.

We have just transitioned from the lies, deceit and prevarication of one administration to the lies, deceit and prevarication of another. It is, in fact, a continuation of the same betrayal of constitutional guarantees, unlawful and unrestricted immigration, insecure borders, wild frivolous spending, and government encouragement of the continuing transition to a deeply immoral society.

The government will persist in eroding our constitutionally protected unalienable rights, and what little is left of the people’s sovereignty will most assuredly be legislated away. In days gone by our leaders were chosen from among the people: they were the servants and we were the Master. Now our leaders are chosen from (and by) the elite: they are the Master and “we the people” are their servants.

Realize this: If the Republicans or the Democrats could have fixed this nation, they would have done it long before now. The more you look, the more you see that both major U.S. political parties are dominated and controlled by this “Invisible Government.”

Both major U.S. political parties do NOT work for, nor do they represent "we the people," but instead represent the the global elitists: the super-rich foundations, the NGOs, the global bankers, the global corporations, and the lobbyists.

Bankrolled by the Rothschild money dynasty (principal owners of the Federal Reserve banks), they have emerged as our present day aristocracy, the “ruling elite families,” which include:

Generations of Rockefellers, Kennedys, and the Bush family; perennial “intellectuals” like Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Albright, Christopher, and Rubin; members of the “Council on Foreign Relations” and the “Trilateral Commission;” and all of the one-time and/or yearly attendees at the annual “Bilderberg” conference.

The much anticipated Obama “change” has been to simply change one CFR perennial appointee for another. Don’t believe me? Well, let’s look at Obama’s top cabinet picks. When considering their collective histories, a trend becomes clear, proving that the more things “change” under Obama, the more they stay the same:

Timothy Geithner – Treasury Secretary: Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, president and CEO of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, formerly of Kissinger Associates.

Paul Volcker – Economic Recovery Advisory Board: Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, North American chairman of Trilateral Commission, Federal Reserve chairman under Presidents Carter and Reagan, president of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, chairman Rothschild Wolfensohn Company.

Lawrence Summers – National Economic Council: Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Treasury Secretary during Clinton administration, chief economist at World Bank, chief economist at IMF.

Hillary Clinton – Secretary of State: Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, U.S. Senator.

Joseph Biden – Vice President: Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senator.

Robert Gates – Defense Secretary: Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Defense Secretary under President Bush, former CIA Director.

General James Jones – National Security Advisor: Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, European supreme allied commander, special envoy for Middle East Security during Bush administration, board of directors for Chevron and Boeing, member of Brent Scowcroft’s Institute for International Affairs (along with Bilderberg Icon Henry Kissinger, top Obama Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski), former Deputy Secretary of Defense Bobby Ray Inman, and former CIA Director John Deutch.

Barack Obama is himself a Council on Foreign Relations member.

Corporate members of the CFR include ABC News, General Electric (owner of NBC News), News Corporation (owner of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal), and Time Warner (owner of CNN and Time). (Remember, I told you they own and control ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.)

In regard to key economic policy advisors, all of Obama’s selections maintain a close relationship with one or more of these long time CFR, Trilateral Commission, government insiders (Ben Bernanke, Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan) as well as ties to bailout engineer Henry Paulson.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner picked former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson as a top aide. Patterson will serve as Geithner’s chief of staff at Treasury, which just happens to oversee the Trillions being handed out through the financial bailout programs.

The list of former Goldman Sachs employees holding top positions in the Obama administration includes:

• Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, who is the chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Geithner.
• Reuben Jeffery III, former managing partner at Goldman Sachs, who holds the post of undersecretary of state for economic, business, and agricultural affairs.
• Neel Kashkari, former Goldman Sachs vice president, who is the assistant secretary of the treasury for financial stability, responsible for administering the TARP funds.
• Dianna Farrell, former financial analyst at Goldman Sachs, who serves as deputy director of the National Economic Council.
• Two former chairmen of Goldman Sachs, Henry Paulson and Robert Rubin, also held the job of U.S. Treasury Secretary.

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

Neither the Left Nor the Right Has a Monopoly on Common Sense

From Thomas Paine to Glenn Beck: The Perversion of 'Common Sense' in American Politics

By Damon Linker, The New Republic
November 30, 2009

Conservatives would have us believe that they hold a monopoly on common sense. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and many other right-wing rabble-rousers regularly portray themselves as defenders of the good, old-fashioned common sense of average Americans against an out-of-touch liberal elite.

A growing cadre of ambitious politicians likewise aims to lead a crusade in the name of “commonsense conservatism.” Glenn Beck has even gone so far as to publish a runaway bestseller that explicitly piggybacks on Thomas Paine’s Common Sense to argue against the danger of “out-of-control government” and the forces of organized foolishness that would foist it on the American people.

The unanimity is impressive. But it is also ridiculous. The fact is that the right’s appeal to common sense is nonsense. Unfortunately, though, it is a form of nonsense with deep roots in the American past and a very long history of political potency. Whether it continues to prove effective in the future will depend in no small measure on how cogently the rest of America responds.

The United States is a nation founded on an egalitarian creed—on the supposedly self-evident (commonsensical?) truths that all men are created equal and that all legitimate government is based on the consent of the governed. In such a nation, public appeals to authority would be much less persuasive than they had been throughout most of human history. Tradition, the divine right of kings, the will of God as interpreted by his designated clerical representatives—in America none of these authorities would benefit from the deference they have typically enjoyed in other times and places. Add in the ever-increasing social pluralism of modern life, and it becomes perfectly understandable why political actors and commentators in the United States would seek to win public disputes by appeal to the only authority still available—the authority of the people and their common sense. Whether such appeals are coherent is another matter...

By the turn of the [20th] century, whatever cultural, moral, and religious consensus prevailed in the United States seemed to be collapsing on multiple fronts. The nation’s cities were filled with impoverished immigrants, many of them from non-Protestant (and in the case of Jews, non-Christian) cultures.

At the same time, industrialization was transforming American life in unpredictable ways, disrupting small-town life, driving the young to seek their fortunes in those same cities, exposing them to unimaginable moral temptations and objectionable ideas.

Meanwhile, the nations schools were beginning to introduce Christian children to disturbing new unbiblical theories about the origins of the human race. For many, the suggestion that human beings evolved from apes sounded both morally monstrous and fundamentally unscientific—a form of demonic speculation wholly divorced from a properly commonsensical study of the natural facts.

And then there was the rise of theological liberalism—or “modernism”—in some of the nation’s leading churches, which showed that not even the nation’s Protestant clergy could maintain agreement on the fundamentals of the faith.

The political and cultural history of the American twentieth century was shaped in countless ways by two movements that arose in direct reaction to these destabilizing trends: populism in politics and fundamentalism in religion. “Common sense” now became a term of flattery, offering praise for the religious and cultural outlook of Americans who continued to uphold the naïve views defended by the Princeton theologians.

These were the views of those who lived in small, homogeneous agricultural communities and who believed their way of life to be under assault by the decadence and corruption of urban economic and political elites.

Populist leader William Jennings Bryan used the term “common sense” in this way during the 1890s, and he revived it at the end of his life when, in the Scopes Trial of 1925, he passionately defended the right of fundamentalist Protestants in Tennessee to insulate their children’s commonsense (i.e., literalistic) reading of the Bible from corruption at the hands of overly educated biology teachers, who wished to expose their students to the theory of Darwinian evolution. Though the verdict in favor of creationism was overturned on appeal, Bryan’s effort to defend the simple common sense of average citizens against the godless pretensions of educated elites was a populist time-bomb that would eventually explode in the American public square.

That explosion took place in the decade following the Second World War, with the paranoid anti-communist crusade of Joseph McCarthy. The Republican senator from Wisconsin may have overreached in his efforts to root out Communists and thereby turned himself into a one of the most reviled figures in American political history, but he also unintentionally managed to unleash a wildly influential style of politics. In the words of its greatest chronicler, historian Richard Hofstadter, this style of politics is best described as an anti-intellectual “dynamic of dissent” against artists, actors, and academics that proved to be “powerful enough to set the tone of our political life” for years to come.

Those who followed in McCarthy’s footsteps have tended to believe that “the plain sense of the common man . . . is an altogether adequate substitute for, if not actually much superior to, formal knowledge and expertise acquired in the schools.” Universities and colleges, by contrast, as well as any institution in which intellectuals exercise influence, are “rotten to the core,” since they fail to pay adequate obeisance to the intuitive wisdom of average Americans.

For the McCarthyite tradition, nothing is more morally destructive than the arrogance of the educated, who are “pretentious, conceited, effeminate, and snobbish,” and very likely “immoral, dangerous, and subversive” of common decency no less than of sound judgment.

This is the catechism of the muscular “common sense” populism launched by Joe McCarthy. It has inspired the racist rantings of George Wallace and countless other opponents of segregation and black civil rights. It has motivated Rush Limbaugh and the dozens who imitate him on talk radio and cable news, from O’Reilly and Beck to Hannity and Michael Savage. And it has empowered the religious right in its ongoing efforts to turn back the secular drift of American society and culture since the 1960s.

All of these sundry projects grew out of McCarthyism, and all of them understand themselves to be championing the common sense of the American people against the machinations of corrupt and decadent elites.

The McCarthyite style of invoking common sense entered the American political mainstream at the very moment when McCarthy himself was on the verge of self-destruction. Dwight D. Eisenhower was a moderate Republican, yet he learned something important from the Wisconsin senator about the uses of populist appeals. As president, Eisenhower went out of his way to align himself with “common sense and common decency,” and he delighted in taking potshots at the pretensions of scholars, experts, and “eggheads.” On one memorable occasion, Ike even offered his own definition of an intellectual—a man “who takes more words than are necessary to tell more than he knows.” Plain-spoken average Americans apparently suffered from no such debility.

By the time Eisenhower’s vice president (Richard Nixon) ascended to the White House in 1968, the Republican establishment had mastered the art of appealing to common sense as a way to gain grassroots electoral advantage. Nixon’s own vice president, Spiro Agnew, spearheaded GOP efforts to portray Republicans as defenders of common sense against the slothful decadence of the counterculture, while Nixon himself spoke in 1973 of the need to temper America’s idealism (in his condescending words, its “warmhearted impatience”) with “another equally American trait—and that is levelheaded common sense.” With this statement, Nixon employed both forms of commonsense rhetoric: he identified his own position with common sense, presumably relegating his critics to the camp of the innately foolish, and he flattered those Americans who longed to blame the country's problems on a bunch of pampered college students and the elitist snobs who ran the Democratic Party.

But it was Ronald Reagan who took the appeal to common sense to a whole new level in American politics—combining with greater skill than anyone before him a rhetoric of populism with the conviction that his agenda was self-evidently right. Reagan honed this synthesis in a series of provocative lectures throughout the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, speaking out, in the name of common sense, against the establishments of both political parties.

In his two terms as president, Reagan frequently portrayed his crusades in favor of cutting taxes and increasing spending on national defense as expressions of the common sense of the American majority. This is certainly how he described his presidency in his farewell address to the nation, delivered on January 11, 1989. In these remarks, the president cast the so-called Reagan Revolution as The Great Rediscovery—a “rediscovery of our values and our common sense” after a protracted period of confusion during which the nation lost its way, embracing manifold forms of sophisticated foolishness.

In this as well as in other ways, George W. Bush went out of his way to recapture the spirit of Reagan. But he did more than embrace the Reagan legacy. With the help of his advisor Karl Rove, Bush moved beyond Reagan, to portray himself as the authentic voice and sincere champion of the grassroots “dynamic of dissent” that Richard Hofstadter first identified in McCarthyism and that had exploded in power and influence during the intervening decades.

For much of the Bush presidency, staunchly conservative talk radio and cable news, right-wing Internet weblogs, and reactionary evangelical pastors uncritically conveyed and defended the administration’s position on foreign and domestic policy, while whipping their audiences into a populist frenzy and channeling it into enthusiastic, almost ecstatic support for the president.

Everything about Bush—from his economically libertarian and socially conservative policies to his swaggering gait, mannered Southern drawl, and studied inarticulateness—was intended to convey the message that he was “one of us,” an average American bringing his hard-won common sense to bear on the most challenging problems of our time, many if not all of which could be traced to the influence of the godless liberal elites who “really” run the country from their decadent enclaves in New York and Hollywood.

It was in the crucible of the 2004 election campaign that Bush sought to identify his administration’s policies most fully with common sense. Bush set the tone for the election cycle in an early remark about judicial appointments:

“We need common-sense judges who understand our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.”

Having established that common sense yields the jurisprudence favored by the religious right, Bush encouraged his party to champion common sense in other areas as well. The plank in the 2004 Republican Party platform that supported permanently banning gay marriage described the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act as a “common-sense law.” Congressional Republicans defended their efforts to renew the USA Patriot Act as a “common-sense approach to improving domestic security.” Meanwhile, the Bush campaign repeatedly attacked his Democratic opponent John Kerry for “opposing common-sense measures like the ban on partial-birth abortion.” And then there was the constant stream of advertisements that repeatedly portrayed Kerry as an elitist snob.

Today, with the GOP tearing itself apart over public policy, the right appears to agree about little besides the political necessity of continuing to praise the good, old-fashioned common sense of average Americans and contrasting it to supposedly out-of-touch, over-educated outlook of liberal elites. Indeed, some (like Sarah Palin) have doubled down on the appeal to common sense, placing it at the core of their political ambitions.

Whereas Republicans once used populist flattery to get themselves elected so that they could accomplish specific public-policy goals, they’ve now began to treat such flattery as an end in itself, as a form of ideologically vacuous identity politics. Such appeals are unlikely to succeed, at least at the national level—and not only because there simply are no longer enough culturally alienated white people in the United States to catapult a presidential candidate to victory.

The deeper reason why the appeal to common sense is liable to become a dead end in the coming years is that research in numerous fields—including artificial intelligence (The Open Mind Common Sense Project, The Cyc Project), linguistics and cognitive science (Ray Jackendoff, Steven Pinker), and psychology (Jonathan Haidt)—has the potential to transform the way we think about common sense, and not in a way that is likely to vindicate the right-wing approach to the topic.

Take Haidt’s work in psychology, which identifies several moral ideals—harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity—that appear to be broadly universal across cultures and history. If (as seems likely) scientific research one day demonstrates that this list, or one like it, contains the sum total of human common sense, it will be intellectually interesting but politically irrelevant. Such a finding would imply, after all, that the only individuals who lack common sense are those who show no care for another person, no attachment to fairness, no loyalty to or respect for anything or anyone, and no admiration for purity of any kind. The only people who could be said to lack common sense, in other words, would be certifiable sociopaths.

Accordingly, Haidt claims to have found that American liberals and conservatives merely differ on which aspects of common sense they prize most highly — with liberals tending to esteem fairness and care and conservatives leaning toward loyalty, respect and purity.

If this finding ends up being confirmed by further studies, it would show not that one ideological outlook or another is more commonsensical than other, but rather that the content of common sense is somewhat fluid or changeable within certain broad parameters—and that to a considerable extent it mirrors our political opinions and ideological commitments (or vice versa).

That Americans disagree with one another on political and cultural matters is not an indication that those on one side or the other are out of touch with common sense. On the contrary, it is a consequence of our freedom—our freedom to disagree, to think for ourselves and to stake out political and ideological positions consonant with our divergent histories and experiences of the world, as well as with the differing natural tendencies and capacities of our minds.

As an attempt to gain electoral advantage by demagogically short-circuiting open-ended public debate among equal citizens, the appeal to common sense deserves to be repudiated by all intellectually honest participants in American politics.

"If you put a Democrat, a Republican, and a Libertarian alone in a room together, the Republican and Democrat will eventually team up against the Libertarian. This is because both of them believe the power of government could be used for enormous good . . . if only they were the one controlling it; the libertarian wants to destroy the machine. I think this makes it clear why, in the end, both Democrats and Republicans are our 'enemies.' They like the machine, they believe in the machine . . . and they both will defend it to the death. Make no mistake: if we become powerful enough to be a real political threat, they will both turn on us." - Dale Amon (Belfast, Northern Ireland)

Tea Party Co-Founder: Concept Has Been Hijacked By False Left/Right Paradigm
Tea Party Co-Founder Laments Hijacking of Movement

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

The Global Rich Are Going Green As Never Before

...Every attempt by government to use its coercive power to protect the environment not only fails, but actually creates the very problems it purports to try to solve. In most cases, the problem does not even exist until the government undertakes to solve it. What is government's solution? Always it is to attack private property and free enterprise. It never ceases to amaze me that the American public at large exhibits absolutely no skepticism towards the politically-connected segment of the environmental movement. For 100 years, members of a certain political movement claimed that private property and free enterprise would destroy society. The 20th century proved them absolutely wrong. Those societies that did away with private property and free enterprise were destroyed themselves, while those that (for the most part) retained property rights flourished. Subsequently, the members of this same political movement suddenly became activists for the environment, studied the problem, and concluded that there was only one way to save the earth from environmental disaster: by abolishing private property and free enterprise. Does no one find this conclusion -- by these people -- an odd coincidence? Does no one even suspect their motives? Are we a nation of fools? - Tom Mullen, 'Make Obama Watch Ghostbusters', Campaign for Liberty, December 7, 2009

The Ruling Elite Embrace Environmentalism

By Philip Beresford, The Sunday Times
March 1, 2009

The global rich are going green as never before. This first Sunday Times Green Rich List shows that the enthusiasm among the world’s wealthiest for investments in areas as diverse as electric cars, solar power and geothermal energy is unaffected by the recession.

The Green List has unearthed 100 tycoons or wealthy families worth £200m or more who have made either serious investments in green technology and businesses or hefty financial commitments to environmental causes. In total, the Green 100 are worth nearly £267 billion.

This enormous sum demonstrates that many of the world’s richest tycoons and entrepreneurs have embraced environmentalism. Indeed, our list is dominated by America’s wealthiest financiers and entrepreneurs such as Warren Buffett (worth £27 billion) and Bill Gates (worth £26 billion).

These two canny investors, who regularly swap places at the top of Forbes magazine’s annual list of world billionaires, have spent some of their financial firepower on areas such as wind power and electric cars in Buffett’s case, while Gates has backed alternative fuels such as oil from algae. We are not talking trifling sums here. Buffett has invested $230m in the Hong Kong battery-maker BYD.

Many of the 35 Americans in the Top 100 are drawn from Silicon Valley. Having made their first fortunes in microchips, the internet or software, the likes of Google’s Larry Page and Sergey Brin (each worth £7.5 billion) are turning to green investments with all the entrepreneurial zeal that made their first fortunes.

It helps that the Obama administration is committed to a huge stimulus package involving the very technologies that investors are focusing on.

Even tycoons who are not in President Barack Obama’s camp have moved into alternative energy, none more so than T Boone Pickens, oil explorer, corporate raider and a Texan Republican to his core. He is using part of his £1.8 billion fortune on filling the huge and windy Texas Panhandle with turbines as part of his Pickens Plan to wean America off its dependence on foreign energy.

American money may be chasing smarter and greener technologies, while the Chinese rich on our list are definitely about mass production of green technologies.

The 17 Chinese tycoons in the Top 100 are concentrated at the bottom end of the list and they are almost exclusively involved in solar and electric-car technology. It is a ferociously competitive market with unremitting pressure to cut costs and gain market share.

As such, all the Chinese fortunes have been hammered as share prices have fallen sharply. A year ago, many would have been in the Top 50, but not now. Indeed, some of them will not survive the steep downturn they are now battling through. But out of it will emerge winners selling much cheaper and more technically advanced products to a huge market worldwide.

There are 10 British or British-based tycoons on the list. None is going head-to-head with the Chinese in mass production. And they are not taking the German route. The seven German tycoons are largely involved in wind turbines and the like. This is a bespoke market — meat and drink to the German industrial sector.

The pity is that aside from Sir Richard Branson, who is investing in alternative fuels, there are no real British equivalents of Aloys Wobben. A German engineering graduate, Wobben started Enercon in 1984, building his first wind turbine in his back garden. Today the company employs 6,000 staff and exports sophisticated turbines all over the world.

German entrepreneurs who have made their fortunes elsewhere are also moving into green technology in a serious way, defying the prevailing economic gloom.

Twins Andreas and Thomas Strungmann built a £6.8 billion pharmaceutical fortune. Having sold their pharma business, they put many millions into saving a German solar company early last year just as the economic outlook worsened.

America’s wealthy are not just investing in new technology, they are also spending their fortunes on direct environmental activism, saving large tracts of wilderness from developers, endowing university research into green energy, climate change and the like.

This can have a huge impact in changing the mood in favour of more green activism on the political front, making the climate right for Obama to push through radical green initiatives that would not have been contemplated in George Bush’s presidency.

There is little evidence of any appetite among Britain’s super-rich for this approach. Firmly rooted in property, finance or retailing, they have little time or surplus wealth for anything other than lip service to green issues. They are also involved in firefighting to keep their businesses afloat. When the recession is over, there are precious few forecasters who think the City and the like will return to its glory days. With traditional factories and industries closing in record numbers, where will Britain’s future prosperity come from? It is a sobering thought.

Obama’s Involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange
Obama, Maurice Strong, Al Gore Key Players Cashing in on Chicago Climate Exchange
Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire
Al Gore 'profiting' from climate change agenda

Deep Ecology – The Hidden Agenda

The Green Agenda

The almost simultaneous emergence of the Environmental and New Age movements in the 1970s has spawned a plethora of hybrid ecospiritual philosophies. These include the Gaia hypothesis, Deep Ecology, Sacred Ecology, Ecosophy, and Creation Spirituality. These philosophies all overlap with each other to some extent but tend to focus on different aspects of ‘protecting the earth from humanity.’

Perhaps the most dangerous and radical is the philosophy known as Deep Ecology.

Deep Ecology is a semi-religious movement that believes modern civilisation’s anthropocentric (human-centered) worldview is the root cause of an imminent complete ecological collapse. Deep ecologists blame humans for this fast-approaching apocalypse and believe that humanity’s destructive activities must be halted immediately, by any means necessary, and at whatever cost.

Deep ecologists argue for a radical reduction in human population, in human "interference" in nature, and in the human standard of living. They argue that primitive peoples lived in spiritual harmony with the natural world, but European industrial culture has severed this harmony and we have become a feral untamed plague on the earth. According to them industrial society is like a cancer spreading through a global host.

In some ways, Deep Ecology has similar roots to Gaia hypothesis, in that humans are part of a sentient super-organism known as Earth. However, Deep ecologists go further than the Gaians in arguing that humanity is genuinely of no more importance than an amoeba or the smallpox virus. Deep Ecology argues that humanity has no hierarchical dominance or any sense of uniqueness. We are just another animal, and a crazed, destructive one at that. While Gaians tend to focus on spiritual aspects of communing with Mother Earth, Deep ecologists focus on the negative aspects of human activity on the earth.

Deep Ecology has greatly influenced grassroots environmentalism, especially in Europe, North America, and Australia. It has spread through “road shows” and ritual processes led by touring movement advocates, through the writings of its architects (often reaching college students in environmental studies courses) and perhaps especially by the dramatic activism of its radical environmental vanguards e.g. Earth First!, Greenpeace, the Earth Liberation Front, and PETA.

The Deep Ecology philosophy was no doubt strongly influenced by The Limits to Growth published by the Club of Rome in 1972. This book claimed that human society was far outstripping the earth’s regenerative capacity and the world was on the brink of an environmental catastrophe. The term ‘Deep Ecology’ was first used by the famous Norwegian philosopher, and ‘mystical Buddhist,’ Arne Naess in 1973. He claimed that the science of ecology was shallow and meaningless as it looked at the world from a human perspective, while Naess argued that the human species has the same ‘intrinsic value’ as a bacterium or an earthworm. He stated the eight core principles of Deep Ecology were:

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.


2. Richness and diversity of life-forms contribute to the realisation of these values and are also values in themselves.


3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.


4. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.


5. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.


6. Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.


7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.


8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.

Naess soon gained a large following in the emerging green movement, especially among the youngest and most radical factions. Deep ecology’s uncompromising rhetoric provided a welcome, radical alternative to the New Age earth-loving, tree-hugging Gaia hypothesis. They saw this new anti-human philosophy as a call to arms against western capitalism.

Radical environmental activism flourished during the late 1970s, fuelled by recruits from the anti-Vietnam war and Civil Rights movements. News reports were replete with stories about ‘’hippies” chained to trees and activists burning down animal research facilities.

Radical environmental activism seems to have died a slow death since the 1990s as the wider green movement considered their actions to be counter-productive and harmful to the cause. However, the philosophy behind Deep Ecology has continued to spread and infiltrate the movement. Few people realize that ‘respectable’ environmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy were originally formed by radical activists who recognised that their ultimate goals could only be realized through political and social tools

Many of these organisations now act as consultants to the United Nations. Anti-human sentiment and subtle calls for ‘human reproductive control’ are sprinkled throughout Agenda 21 and the Earth Charter. Many prominent environmentalists are now touting population control as the only answer to the world’s problems. Even the original Gaian, Sir James Lovelock, has taken to calling humans “an out of control cancer that Gaia will soon eradicate.”

It appears that the Global Green Agenda includes controlling every aspect of human activity, especially our reproduction. Humans, as a destructive pest species, must have their population tightly controlled, and even significantly reduced according to some:

"The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size." — Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p.135

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." — Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

"If the world pollution situation is not critical at the moment, it is as certain as anything can be that the situation will become increasingly intolerable within a very short time. The situation can be controlled, and even reversed; but it demands cooperation on a scale and intensity beyond anything achieved so far." — The Fairfield Osborne Lecture by HRH Prince Philip

"I don't claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the cull to the size of the surplus population." — Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." — Ted Turner, CNN founder and UN supporter

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." — David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." — Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, pg.75

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

Greenwashing Young Minds By Turning Environmentalism into a New Religion

Kids coerced into performing global warming song as strategy document reveals plan to greenwash young minds by turning environmentalism into Gaia religion.

Shocking UN Document Divulges Climate Cult Brainwashing

By Paul Joseph Watson, PrisonPlanet.com
November 30, 2009

With the reverberations of climategate still echoing, it has now emerged that children are being greenwashed in public schools by being forced to sing climate cult ditties and hate their parents as part of a United Nations propaganda program aimed at capturing young minds, as the UN itself officially acknowledges the global warming mantra as a new religion.

A shocking new UN strategy document also reveals how elitists are recruiting members of academia from all over the globe in an effort to hide the “end-run” around national sovereignty that their program represents.

“When did global warming turn into a forced religion?” asks the New York Post’s Andrea Peyser as she tells the story of how her daughter came home from school singing the words . . . “You can hear the warning — GLOBAL WARMING . . . ”

“All the kids had been coerced into singing this catchy ditty, which we called 'The Warming Song,' at a concert for parents. Further song lyrics scolded selfish adults (that would be us) for polluting our planet and causing a warming scourge that would, in no short order, kill all the polar bears and threaten the birds and bees,” writes Peyser.

That’s right, in the spirit of the Club of Rome’s 1991 resolution to make humanity the enemy in creating the contrived threat of environmental armageddon, children have been turned against their own parents in the service of a new Gaia religion.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself,” they wrote in a report entitled “The First Global Revolution.”

“Our children are on the front lines of the warming hysteria, a place where 'experts' from Al Gore to the president leave no room for dissent or even the slightest skepticism, despite claims that are no more provable than the Earth is flat,” says Peyser.

A newly uncovered document sheds some light on the genesis of how such brainwashing found its way into our schools: A strategy paper for the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world’s would-be environmental watchdog, reveals how the global elite in charge of the green takeover resolved that:

“Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,” according to a Fox News report.

This approach follows a similar tack to the new methods adopted by Al Gore, who in his recent presentations has delivered his message as a kind of religious sermon, acknowledging, “Simply laying out the facts won’t work.”

The UN planning paper outlines a program of implementing a global system of governance based around environmental regulations and laws, stressing the agenda for the “evolutionary nature of strengthening international environmental governance.”

Participants included Janos Pasztor, currently head of the team pushing UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s unprecedented Seal the Deal lobbying campaign to pressure UN member governments into signing a new environmental agreement at Copenhagen; Dominic Waughray, currently head of environmental initiatives at the World Economic Forum; Maria Ivanova and Bulgarian academic Maria Ivanova, director of the Global Economic Governance Project at the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

A core element of the program includes, an extensive propagandizing role for UNEP that reaches beyond its member governments and traditional environmental institutions to “children and youth.”

“Civil society, including children and youth, and the private sector will be reached through tailor-made outreach products and campaigns,” states the document.

The document discusses recruiting academia to further the power of UNEP, noteworthy in light of the recent climategate scandal where scientists at major universities were caught hiding evidence of global cooling.

As the Swiss paper puts it:

“[UNEP] should pioneer a new style of work. This requires going beyond a narrow interpretation of UNEP’s stakeholders as comprising its member states — or even the world’s governments — and recruiting a far wider community of support, in civil society, the academic world and the private sector.”

At the same time the paper warns that these groups need to be “harnessed to the UNEP mission without appearing to make an end-run around the member governments.”

This passage is fairly damning, as the UN is all but admitting that the program does represent an “end-run around member governments,” and that they have to do their best to hide the fact.

The goals enshrined in the document, a counterpart to the globally binding agreement that the UN is seeking to achieve in Copenhagen next month, are “certain to remain a UNEP rallying cry long after the Copenhagen meeting is over — and while the other brainstorming ideas that went into the new four-year strategy, not to mention the strategy itself, go into effect,” writes Fox News’ George Russell.

This document represents yet another smoking gun proving that the climate cult movement is all about expanding the power of a dictatorial, unelected global government, diluting powers of nation states, seizing control of the global economy, eviscerating the middle class with a raft of new regulations and laws, and shutting down industry with impossible CO2 reduction mandates, while erecting environmentalism, which is really a thin veil for global fascism, as the new universal religion.

This has nothing to do with saving the earth and, as the climategate scandal has illustrated, nothing to do with the real science – but everything to do with a relatively small clique of globalists running roughshod over humanity itself in pursuit of their malthusian control freak agenda.

Top 12 Misconceptions About Climate Change
Climate Change: Hoax of the Century

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

A Massive Human Inventory Is Easier to Control If It Is Microchipped

‘One Generation Is All They Need’

By Kevin Haggerty, The Toronto Star
Originally Published on October 12, 2006

By the time my four-year-old son is swathed in the soft flesh of old age, he will likely find it unremarkable that he and almost everyone he knows will be permanently implanted with a microchip. Automatically tracking his location in real time, it will connect him with databases monitoring and recording his smallest behavioural traits.

Most people anticipate such a prospect with a sense of horrified disbelief, dismissing it as a science-fiction fantasy. The technology, however, already exists. For years humane societies have implanted all the pets that leave their premises with a small identifying microchip. As well, millions of consumer goods are now traced with tiny radio frequency identification chips that allow satellites to reveal their exact location.

A select group of people are already “chipped” with devices that automatically open doors, turn on lights, and perform other low-level miracles. Prominent among such individuals is researcher Kevin Warwick of Reading University in England; Warwick is a leading proponent of the almost limitless potential uses for such chips.

Other users include the patrons of the Baja Beach Club in Barcelona, many of whom have paid about $150 (U.S.) for the privilege of being implanted with an identifying chip that allows them to bypass lengthy club queues and purchase drinks by being scanned. These individuals are the advance guard of an effort to expand the technology as widely as possible.

From this point forward, microchips will become progressively smaller, less invasive, and easier to deploy. Thus, any realistic barrier to the wholesale “chipping” of Western citizens is not technological but cultural. It relies upon the visceral reaction against the prospect of being personally marked as one component in a massive human inventory.

Today we might strongly hold such beliefs, but sensibilities can, and probably will, change. How this remarkable attitudinal transformation is likely to occur is clear to anyone who has paid attention to privacy issues over the past quarter-century. There will be no 3 a.m. knock on the door by storm troopers come to force implants into our bodies. The process will be more subtle and cumulative, couched in the unassailable language of progress and social betterment, and mimicking many of the processes that have contributed to the expansion of closed-circuit television cameras and the corporate market in personal data.

A series of tried and tested strategies will be marshalled to familiarize citizens with the technology. These will be coupled with efforts to pressure tainted social groups and entice the remainder of the population into being chipped.

This, then, is how the next generation will come to be microchipped.

It starts in distant countries. Having tested the technology on guinea pigs, both human and animal, the first widespread use of human implanting will occur in nations at the periphery of the Western world. Such developments are important in their own right, but their international significance pertains to how they familiarize a global audience with the technology and habituate them to the idea that chipping represents a potential future.

An increasing array of hypothetical chipping scenarios will also be depicted in entertainment media, furthering the familiarization process.

In the West, chips will first be implanted in members of stigmatized groups. Pedophiles are the leading candidate for this distinction, although it could start with terrorists, drug dealers, or whatever happens to be that year’s most vilified criminals. Short-lived promises will be made that the technology will only be used on the “worst of the worst.” In fact, the wholesale chipping of incarcerated individuals will quickly ensue, encompassing people on probation and on parole.

Even accused individuals will be tagged, a measure justified on the grounds that it would stop them from fleeing justice. Many prisoners will welcome this development, since only chipped inmates will be eligible for parole, weekend release, or community sentences. From the prison system will emerge an evocative vocabulary distinguishing chippers from non-chippers.

Although the chips will be justified as a way to reduce fraud and other crimes, criminals will almost immediately develop techniques to simulate other people’s chip codes and manipulate their data.

The comparatively small size of the incarcerated population, however, means that prisons would be simply a brief stopover on a longer voyage. Commercial success is contingent on making serious inroads into tagging the larger population of law-abiding citizens. Other stigmatized groups will therefore be targeted. This will undoubtedly entail monitoring welfare recipients, a move justified to reduce fraud, enhance efficiency, and ensure that the poor do not receive “undeserved” benefits.

Once e-commerce is sufficiently advanced, welfare recipients will receive their benefits as electronic vouchers stored on their microchips, a policy that will be tinged with a sense of righteousness, as it will help ensure that clients can only purchase government-approved goods from select merchants, reducing the always disconcerting prospect that poor people might use their limited funds to purchase alcohol or tobacco.

Civil libertarians will try to foster a debate on these developments. Their attempts to prohibit chipping will be handicapped by the inherent difficulty in animating public sympathy for criminals and welfare recipients — groups that many citizens are only too happy to see subjected to tighter regulation. Indeed, the lesser public concern for such groups is an inherent part of the unarticulated rationale for why coerced chipping will be disproportionately directed at the stigmatized.

The official privacy arm of the government will now take up the issue. Mandated to determine the legality of such initiatives, privacy commissioners and Senate Committees will produce a forest of reports presented at an archipelago of international conferences. Hampered by lengthy research and publication timelines, their findings will be delivered long after the widespread adoption of chipping is effectively a fait accompli. The research conclusions on the effectiveness of such technologies will be mixed and open to interpretation.

Officials will vociferously reassure the chipping industry that they do not oppose chipping itself, which has fast become a growing commercial sector. Instead, they are simply seeking to ensure that the technology is used fairly and that data on the chips is not misused. New policies will be drafted.

Employers will start to expect implants as a condition of getting a job. The U.S. military will lead the way, requiring chips for all soldiers as a means to enhance battlefield command and control — and to identify human remains. From cooks to commandos, every one of the more than one million U.S. military personnel will see microchips replace their dog tags.

Following quickly behind will be the massive security sector. Security guards, police officers, and correctional workers will all be expected to have a chip. Individuals with sensitive jobs will find themselves in the same position.

The first signs of this stage are already apparent. In 2004, the Mexican attorney general’s office started implanting employees to restrict access to secure areas. The category of “sensitive occupation” will be expansive to the point that anyone with a job that requires keys, a password, security clearance, or identification badge will have those replaced by a chip.

Judges hearing cases on the constitutionality of these measures will conclude that chipping policies are within legal limits. The thin veneer of “voluntariness” coating many of these programs will allow the judiciary to maintain that individuals are not being coerced into using the technology.

In situations where the chips are clearly forced on people, the judgments will deem them to be undeniable infringements of the right to privacy. However, they will then invoke the nebulous and historically shifting standard of “reasonableness” to pronounce coerced chipping a reasonable infringement on privacy rights in a context of demands for governmental efficiency and the pressing need to enhance security in light of the still ongoing wars on terror, drugs, and crime.

At this juncture, an unfortunately common tragedy of modern life will occur: A small child, likely a photogenic toddler, will be murdered or horrifically abused. It will happen in one of the media capitals of the Western world, thereby ensuring non-stop breathless coverage. Chip manufactures will recognize this as the opportunity they have been anticipating for years. With their technology now largely bug-free, familiar to most citizens and comparatively inexpensive, manufacturers will partner with the police to launch a high-profile campaign encouraging parents to implant their children “to ensure your own peace of mind.”

Special deals will be offered. Implants will be free, providing the family registers for monitoring services. Loving but unnerved parents will be reassured by the ability to integrate tagging with other functions on their PDA so they can see their child any time from any place.

Paralleling these developments will be initiatives that employ the logic of convenience to entice the increasingly small group of holdouts to embrace the now common practice of being tagged. At first, such convenience tagging will be reserved for the highest echelon of Western society, allowing the elite to move unencumbered through the physical and informational corridors of power. Such practices will spread more widely as the benefits of being chipped become more prosaic. Chipped individuals will, for example, move more rapidly through customs.

Indeed, it will ultimately become a condition of using mass-transit systems that officials be allowed to monitor your chip. Companies will offer discounts to individuals who pay by using funds stored on their embedded chip, on the small-print condition that the merchant can access large swaths of their personal data. These “discounts” are effectively punitive pricing schemes, charging unchipped individuals more as a way to encourage them to submit to monitoring. Corporations will seek out the personal data in hopes of producing ever more fine-grained customer profiles for marketing purposes, and to sell to other institutions.

By this point all major organizations will be looking for opportunities to capitalize on the possibilities inherent in an almost universally chipped population. The uses of chips proliferate, as do the types of discounts.

Each new generation of household technology becomes configured to operate by interacting with a person’s chip. Finding a computer or appliance that will run though old-fashioned “hands-on”‘ interactions becomes progressively more difficult and costly.

Patients in hospitals and community care will be routinely chipped, allowing medical staff — or, more accurately, remote computers — to monitor their biological systems in real time.

Eager to reduce the health costs associated with a largely docile citizenry, authorities will provide tax incentives to individuals who exercise regularly. Personal chips will be remotely monitored to ensure that their heart rate is consistent with an exercise regime.

By now, the actual process of “chipping” for many individuals will simply involve activating certain functions of their existing chip. Any prospect of removing the chip will become increasingly untenable, as having a chip will be a precondition for engaging in the main dynamics of modern life, such as shopping, voting, and driving.

The remaining holdouts will grow increasingly weary of Luddite jokes and subtle accusations that they have something to hide. Exasperated at repeatedly watching neighbours bypass them in “chipped” lines while they remain subject to the delays, inconveniences, and costs reserved for the unchipped, they too will choose the path of least resistance and get an implant.

In one generation, then, the cultural distaste many might see as an innate reaction to the prospect of having our bodies marked like those of an inmate in a concentration camp will likely fade.

In the coming years some of the most powerful institutional actors in society will start to align themselves to entice, coerce, and occasionally compel the next generation to get an implant.

Now, therefore, is the time to contemplate the unprecedented dangers of this scenario. The most serious of these concern how even comparatively stable modern societies will, in times of fear, embrace treacherous promises. How would the prejudices of a Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, or of southern Klansmen — all of whom were deeply integrated into the American political establishment — have manifest themselves in such a world? What might Hitler, Mao or Milosevic have accomplished if their citizens were chipped, coded, and remotely monitored?

Choirs of testimonials will soon start to sing the virtues of implants. Calm reassurances will be forthcoming about democratic traditions, the rule of law, and privacy rights. History, unfortunately, shows that things can go disastrously wrong, and that this happens with disconcerting regularity. Little in the way of international agreements, legality, or democratic sensibilities has proved capable of thwarting single-minded ruthlessness.

“It can’t happen here” has become the whispered swan song of the disappeared. Best to contemplate these dystopian potentials before we proffer the tender forearms of our sons and daughters. While we cannot anticipate all of the positive advantages that might be derived from this technology, the negative prospects are almost too terrifying to contemplate.

Irish Govt and the StratAG Project - Full Spectrum People Tracking Based Technology
MSN: Human Microchip implants will be compulsory for security, says University Prof.
Telegraph: Better Than Viagra - Using Sex to Popularise the Brain-Chip
Microsoft Links Up with Human-embedded RFID Chips
Shopping Centre Offers RFID Child Tags to Familiarise Families With Tracking
Fox News: Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ebert Promote Benefits of Insane RFID Brain-Chips (Video)
Great Control With Radio-Frequency Identification Surveillance - Already in Passports and More
The EU & RFID Chips: Springing the Trap (video)
Google launches software to track mobile users
Free energy inventor discovers mystery Verichip tracking implant in shoulder, caused cancer
Inventer connects the dots back to his involuntary Verichip implant

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

Environmentalism is Becoming the New World Religion

I am certain that the president of at least one country understands the Marxist agenda of the One-World Spiritualists, and I am sure he understands that the "crisis" they are manufacturing to implement their worldview is radical environmentalism.

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, survived communism and now warns the world about these peoples' ultimate goal, the elimination of freedom. President Klaus is the author of the book, "Blue Planet in Green Shackles." Klaus argues that radical environmentalism is masking socialism, communism, and even fascism.

"But while communism was an atheistic system," Klaus notes, "modern environmentalism has assumed a religious dimension and has become a 'green religion.'"

The ultimate goal is "completely about power and about the hegemony of the 'chosen ones' (as they see themselves) over the rest of us, about the imposition of the only correct worldview (their own), about the remodeling of the world," adds Klaus.

Klaus explains that the goal of the radical environmentalist is to completely destroy private property rights and the free enterprise system by limiting the "carbon footprint" of individuals and companies, growing the size of government, and ushering in socialism. Klaus told the Washington Times:

"I understand that global warming is a religion conceived to suppress human freedom."

- Brannon Howse, Christian Worldview Network, "One World Spirituality: Three Worldviews Merge," October 28, 2008

Lord Monckton: Shut Down the UN, Arrest Al Gore

By Paul Joseph Watson, PrisonPlanet.com
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, warming scientists 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.

See the rest on The Alex Jones Channel

Who’s to Blame for Climategate?

By Gordon Rayner, Telegraph
November 27, 2009

The drab, drum-shaped home of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit is an anonymous little outpost, blending seamlessly with its chunky concrete neighbours on a windswept campus just outside Norwich. To the uninitiated, it has the look of a Seventies bus station waiting for the council to pull it down.

Unlikely as it may seem, however, this little corner of East Anglia is now ground zero in a controversy which just might influence the entire future of our planet.

A little over a week ago, hundreds of internal emails written by scientists working at the CRU were obtained by a hacker and posted on the internet, some of which appeared to show that researchers had deliberately faked evidence of global warming by manipulating statistics.

At first, the fallout was restricted to a row between climate change experts, played out in scientific journals and specialist internet blogs, but in the past few days, as the ripples have spread around the globe, “Climategate” has become a white hot political issue which has been seized upon by global warming sceptics and now threatens to overshadow next month’s crucial climate change conference in Copenhagen...

Phil Jones, the 57-year-old director of the CRU, is the man who has suddenly found himself the number one target of climate change conspiracy theorists the world over after he sent the most damaging of all the emails exposed by the anonymous hacker.

In one message, dated November 1999, he wrote:

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

Gotcha! say the global warming sceptics who have argued for years that average temperatures on Earth are, in reality, either stable or going down. Professor Jones defended himself by claiming the word “trick” was used out of context and simply referred to a legitimate method of handling data. But there was more.

An email sent by one of Prof Jones’s colleagues said:

“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.”

Prof Jones, whose department has for years refused to release its raw data on temperatures, wrote another email in which he said:

Sceptics “have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”

By chance, he now admits he has “accidentally” deleted some of the raw data.

Another message said the CRU’s method of collating data “renders the station counts totally meaningless… so, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

Prof Jones, who at first refused to confirm even that the emails were genuine, finally issued a statement on Wednesday, in which he said:

“My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well.”

On that point, at least, no one is likely to argue with him.

Although Prof Jones is not what you could call a household name (though he soon might be) he is, without doubt, one of the world’s most influential proponents of the theory of man-made global warming.

The CRU has the largest archive of global temperature data in the world, and its research formed the basis of the United Nations’ key document on global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of 2007.

But Prof Jones has been embroiled in controversy before. Three years ago, a report commissioned by the US House of Representatives energy and commerce committee claimed that a clique of just 43 scientists, including Prof Jones and one of his CRU colleagues, was stifling open debate on climate change.

Little wonder, then, that climate change deniers are hailing the emails as final proof that global warming is nothing more than a hoax which is being covered up by governments who have themselves been duped.

Suddenly, Phil Jones is the name on the lips of every Right-wing commentator in the US, some of whom have warned that President Obama is being tricked into making the most expensive mistake in history by backing emission caps and carbon trading legislation that will cost US taxpayers trillions of dollars.

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News has described the emails as a “game-changer” for Obama cap and trade bills. Fox’s climate change commentator, John Lott, suggested that Prof Jones was guilty of an “unprecedented co-ordinated campaign to hide scientific information.” Meanwhile Matt Drudge, arguably the most influential reporter on the internet and the man who broke the story of President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, has helped direct millions of hits to websites reporting on the email scandal by featuring it prominently on his Drudge Report website...

Prof Jones is in little doubt that the timing of the leak -- two weeks before the start of the Copenhagen conference -- was a “concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change” at the most sensitive possible time. Next month’s Copenhagen conference has been billed as the last chance for world leaders to prevent an irreversible change to the planet’s climate. Unless they can reach a binding agreement on reducing global emissions, mankind could face a bleak future, according to the majority of the scientific community.

The hacker who exposed the emails no doubt hopes Climategate will tip the scales decisively against an agreement -- an outcome which is likely to be supported by a minority of hardliners in the US, such as Bryan Zumwalt, legislative counsel for Republican senator David Vitter, who said earlier this week that:

The CRU emails were evidence of what “could well be the greatest act of scientific fraud in history” and suggested that “nearly all of the international data and models supporting the theory of global warming would have been influenced by data corruption and fraud.”

However Bob Ward, a climate change expert at the London School of Economics and Political Science, believes world leaders will pay little attention to the scandal surrounding the CRU, arguing that politics, not science, will decide the fate of the Copenhagen summit.

“The politicians won’t be swayed by this,” he said. “It’s basic physics that the world is being warmed by greenhouse gases, and politicians can see through the sceptics’ arguments. If Copenhagen fails to produce an agreement, it won’t be because of these emails. And in the US, President Obama’s cap and trade bills will be decided by 12 or 13 Democratic senators who represent states with large coal and oil reserves.”

Mr Ward does not believe the emails reveal any evidence of impropriety, but supported Lord Lawson’s calls for an independent investigation so the matter can be cleared up. He said:

“I don’t believe there is any evidence here of fraud, but it’s regrettable that this has happened and I regret the fact that some members of the research community have dismissed out of hand those who have tried to make a counter-argument.”

Whether or not Climategate influences the outcome of the Copenhagen summit, it seems that its long-term legacy will be to make the ongoing war of words between “warmists” and “coolists” more poisonous than ever.



Scientific Community is Buzzing Over E-mails & Docs Leaked from CRU
Lord Monckton: Prosecute the Climate Change Criminals
Climategate: Peer-Review System Was Hijacked By Warming Alarmists
Dr. Tim Ball on the Significance of the CRU Hacked Documents
Alex Jones Runs Down Man-made Climate Change Hoax Exposed in CRU Emails
Inhofe to call for hearing into CRU, U.N. climate change research
Global Warming Fraud Exposed as Copenhagen Approaches
British climate change propagandists ‘conspired to keep sceptics in the dark’
Climate Change Skeptics Get to Say ‘I told you so!’
Clouds hang over the global-warming alarmists
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
Alex Jones on Russia Today: Americans have a gun to their heads
Russia Today - Alex Jones talks with RT’s Anastasia Churkina in this exclusive interview.
Climate Alarmists Finally Admit The Debate Is Not Over
Paul Joseph Watson - But establishment media organs continue to invoke South Park’s Officer Barbrady; "Move along, nothing to see here."
Alex Jones on Climategate: A Hoax and Ponzi Scheme
Russia Today - Alex Jones dubs this scandal as one of the biggest hoaxes and financial frauds in the history of mankind.
Climategate Exposes the Alarmist Machine
James Corbett - The backlash will not be merely directed at this group of researchers, but on the very scientific processes and institutions that they have so shamefully abused.
Programmer's Comments in CRU Source Code Tells the Story
Watts Up With That? - A programmer’s comments are less open to interpretation than email.
BBC Climate Correspondent Was Forwarded CRU Emails Five Weeks Before They Were Made Public
Steve Watson - Further indication that "climategate" data was leaked by an inside source.
Hacked climate emails include calls for ‘Earth Government’ as foundation of new world order
Infowars - One of the hacked climate emails apparently calls for an "Earth Government" based upon a ‘democratic’ world government
Climategate spells end to the false science of climate change
Anthony Gucciardi - The ludicrous claims made by pushers of the global warming scam have been thoroughly debunked, and those in charge of creating false numbers have been exposed.
Climategate For Dummies
Steve Watson & Paul Joseph Watson - Core reading on one of the greatest scandals in modern history. How prominent scientists skewed the data on global warming.
Scientists say hackers skewed climate-change emails
CBC News - Climate change scientists are on the defensive after hackers broke into a server of a British climate research centre over the weekend and posted hundreds of private emails that appear to show scientists have overstated the threat of man-made global warming.
Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal
Dr. Tim Ball and Judi McLeod - Climategate is already the biggest scientific scandal in history because of the global policy implications.
Climategate is YOUR fight
The Blood of Patriots and Tyrants - The globalists have thrown their best punches while we played rope-a-dope.
Hot ‘Climategate’ debate: Scientists clash LIVE on RT
Russia Today - A respected British scientist has admitted that emails taken from his inbox, calling into question many of the accepted truths of global warming, were genuine.
Climategate: The Silence is Deafening from the Corporate Media
J Speer-Williams - Even Obama’s Science Czar, John P. Holdren, has been exposed as a dangerous extremist.
Climategate Master Criminal Phil Jones Collected $22.6 Million in Grants
Ice Age Now - Since 1990, Phil Jones has collected a staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Christopher Booker - Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash.
Penn State Will Investigate Climategate
US News & World Report - The Penn State administration plans to investigate Climategate and determine if it needs to take further action.
Climategate Deniers In Denial
Fascist Soup - I think its time to turn the "Denier" title back on the fascists who are still blindly supporting this global fraud.
Gibbs: Despite research dispute, ‘climate change is happening’
The Hill - The White House on Monday made exceptionally clear that it wants nothing to do with the furor over documents that global warming skeptics say prove the phenomenon is not a threat.
Dear Main Stream Media, Climategate Story’s Not Going Away
Conservative for Change - We know you are doing your best to cover this up.
Al Gore Confronted On Climategate In Chicago
We Are Change Chicago - On Tuesday, November 24th 2009, We Are Change Chicago attended a book signing with former vice president Al Gore, at the Borders Bookstore on 150 N. State Street.
CRU Ringleader Phil Jones to Step Down
Kurt Nimmo - CRU’s Phil Jones will step down from his position as director of the unit that cooked climate change data to hide global cooling.
Bombshell UN Documents Outline Plan To Use Climategate Crooks In "End Run" Around National Sovereignty
Paul Joseph Watson - Strategy papers call for United Nations to boss economies and erect world government under pretext of environmentalism.
Copenhagen Spokesman Calls for "Creation of Vision" through Works of Fiction at UNESCO Conference
Jurriaan Maessen - UNESCO discusses how to best sell the global warming hoax to selected target audiences.
Dictatorial UN Crushes Media Freedom Before Copenhagen
Paul Joseph Watson - Free speech in the new world order will not be tolerated if you don’t doth your cap in servility to the global government agenda.
CNN Spreads Detention Camp Disinfo
Camp FEMA - CNN’s John Acosta says that the Federal government is not building detention camps around the country and that there is absolutely no proof of these kinds of activities.
Late author Michael Crichton warned of global warming’s dangerous parallels to eugenics
Aaron Dykes - Late author Michael Crichton warned in his 2004 ‘State of Fear’ that the false science and politically-motivated action of the global warming agenda draws a cautionary parallel to the resulting genocide of the early 20th Century Eugenics movement.
Climate change data dumped
The Sunday Times - 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.
Danish Cops Prepare "Dog Kennels" for Copenhagen Protesters
Infowars - The Danish parliament Folketinget recently passed legislation which enables the police to conduct preemptive arrests on the sole assumption of guilty.
Rep. Miller Calls For Climategate Investigation
Paul Joseph Watson - Destruction of raw data to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests was "a criminal act," says Congresswoman.
It’s Over, Al Gore.
Aaron Dykes - Abandon your lucrative carbon-scheming, admit there was never a ‘consensus’ and give back the Nobel Peace Prize.
Climategate Investigator Is Member Of Vehemently Pro-Man Made Global Warming Organization
Paul Joseph Watson - IPCC and establishment lackey Russell set to whitewash email scandal.
Climategate Crooks Recast Themselves As The Victims
Paul Joseph Watson - Despite the far likelier case that the emails were leaked from the inside, and were not illegally obtained by criminal hackers.
Rep. Issa: Obama’s refusal to investigate ‘Climategate’ emails is ‘unconscionable’
The Hill - "The very integrity of the report that the Obama administration has predicated much of its climate change policy has been called into question."
Meteorologist suggests NOAA manipulates data to support climate claims and political goals
Marc Morano - NOAA chose to remove satellite input into their global ocean estimation.
Yes he can: Obama to spend day at Copenhagen
To save the planet, strike a deal with Big Oil
Times Online - A breakthrough on Copenhagen is quite simple. It depends on four US senators and a wave of new rigs off the Gulf coast
Gore: Copenhagen targets not tough enough
Times Online - Gore said Copenhagen will only be the first step towards the far more radical cuts that are needed in global carbon emissions.
India Announces Plan to Slow Emissions
Climate talk collapse better for planet: NASA's Hansen
Top climate change expert hopes science got it wrong
Cap-and-trade means plant-a-tree for U.S. farms
Playing catch-up, new wind power firms head offshore
Nepal cabinet meets at Everest to send climate message
Thai environmental group takes aim at more firms
U.N. official says leaders want fast climate deal
U.S. DOE awards $979 mln for carbon capture projects
"Encouraging" signs for cash at climate summit: U.N.
Rio to sell 50 pct of carbon project to BP
Indian leader to attend Copenhagen climate talks
UN official calls for funds for climate change
India to slow carbon emissions growth by 20-25 pct
Climate change a security issue, says Nobel laureate
Smart Grid Riding On The Information Superhighway
The Top MBA Programs Integrating Sustainability and CSR
Progress Energy Joins Stampede Away from Coal
What will the climate summit achieve?
Is India "the Next China" as It Confronts Climate Change?
Brazil Caught Between Oil, Politics, and Carbon Growth
Climate Change and Risk of Hunger
Climate Lobby Goes Global as Copenhagen Showdown Looms
Climate drama climax looks elusive in Copenhagen
Tri-City Herald - For 20 years, as this crowded planet grew warmer, nations have gathered annually to try to do something about it. History now brings them to this chilly northern capital, and to a crossroads.
Gore says supercomputing can be killer app in climate change
Computerworld - Gore said supercomputers can be used to show the world how climate change is affecting the earth in human terms.
Key dates in the story of a warming planet
The Associated Press - Before Industrial Revolution, atmosphere holds 280 parts per million of heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2).
A little background on Copenhagen talks
The Associated Press - Some 15,000 delegates, environmentalists, scientists, journalists and others gather in Copenhagen, Denmark, on Monday to begin two weeks of negotiations on what to do about climate change. Here's a look at what's happening there.
"Climate Express" to Copenhagen lowers footprint
Tri-City Herald - A train splashed with a green stripe carried 450 U.N. officials, delegates, climate activists and journalists from Brussels to the climate summit in Copenhagen on Saturday to symbolize efforts to reduce the convention's carbon footprint.
White House Dismisses ‘Climategate’ Because ‘Most People’ Believe in Global Warming
U.S. DOE awards $979 mln for carbon capture projects
Reuters - The U.S. Energy Department on Friday announced it will award up to $979 million to three projects aimed at developing technology to trap and store carbon emissions from coal plants
Climategate has echoes of Watergate, UN says
Telegraph - UN officials say that Russian hackers were paid in a deliberate conspiracy to undermine the Copenhagen summit
Global warming merely a political hoax
Washington, DC braces for colder-than-normal winter as Obama heads off to sign global warming treaty
Climategate reveals ‘undercurrent of elitism’
Science as Religion
Western nations should open up borders to millions of ‘climate refugees’
Brown govt attacks ‘dangerous, deceitful, flat-earth’ climate change sceptics
‘Copenhagen Summit: On the Road to the Dark Age’

Updated 12/7/2009

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page