Rothschild, Ben Bernanke, Ban Ki-Moon and The Global WARming

THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM CONTINUES...

ARE THEY HIJACKING PUBLIC POLICY?

"Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is hijacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history."
- John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel

OR WILL IT MEAN THE "EXTINCTION OF THE HUMAN RACE"?

“People often ask about the costs. But the figures people tend to cite don’t take into account conservation and efficiency measures that are easily available. And they don’t look at the cost of inaction, which is the extinction of the human race. Period.”
- Kevin Parker, Global Head of Deutsche Bank Asset Management

The effects of a repricing of carbon will be profound. Carbon will take its place alongside oil, coal and gas as one of the most closely followed commodities in the world. This will mark the beginning of externalities at last being priced into the cost of production. It will signal that carbon emitters have had a free ride for long enough. Governments, the United States in particular, will have to join Europe to create a global market for pricing carbon and businesses around the world will have to accept the price the market sets.
- Kevin Parker, "Carbon emitters’ free ride is about to end," July 16, 2008

As global warming fanatics converged in Copenhagen to try to push through their globalist agenda, the population of the western United States braced for record-low temperatures and extreme snow conditions. The extreme cold in the West brought most unusual snow to low elevations around the San Francisco Bay area. The early arrival of winter resulted in record low temperatures on December 5, with 200 record low temperatures set in 17 states across the United States. Cold weather is expected in Copenhagen on Friday. They will be hoping for global warming when Obama gets there.

Snow covered the hills around San Francisco and Los Angeles...

...as Hollywood saw snow on December 8...

...and the deer enjoyed the snow in the hills of San Jose.

Californians shivered in Redding where record low temperatures dipped to 16 degrees F (-8 C) on December 9. The Sacramento Valley saw bitter cold on December 8 with only 19 degrees F (-7 C) in Red Bluff and 23 degrees F (-5 C) in Sacramento. The same cold front brought 20 inches of snow to Flagstaff, Arizona, more than four times the record of 5 inches set in 1956.

Is "global warming" a real problem or a scam? Profesional meteorologists like John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, will tell you it is nothing but a huge scam to set up a global carbon tax. The controlled media, on the other hand, crank out a never-ending stream of articles warning of global catastrophe caused by man's use of fossil fuels. I stopped reading the Guardian Weekly (UK) because it had become nothing more than a propaganda sheet for the "global warming" crowd.

This is the key point about the controlled media and the "global warming" scare. The same controlled media outlets that are promoting this doomsday hoax are the same ones who have lied to the public for more than eight years about what really happened on 9-11 - and why the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. These are the same people running the same propaganda networks and newspapers, e.g. The New York Times, who published blatantly false stories about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction in order to get U.S. public opinion to support their pre-planned illegal invasion and occupation. These people have a proven record of using deceit and lies to push a criminal agenda.

TIME'S MAN OF THE YEAR: MEGA-SHYSTER BEN BERNANKE

We now read that Ben Shalom Bernanke is man of the year for TIME magazine, a key outlet of the Zionist-controlled press in the United States. TIME has a slide show of Ben Bernanke growing up in Dillon, South Carolina. One picture shows a young Ben and says he waited tables at Alan Heller Schafer's sprawling roadside gambling and drinking establishment on Interstate 95 called "South of the Border." What TIME won't tell you is that Schafer, Bernanke's boss for many years, was the long-standing chairman of the Democratic Party in Dillon County who ran the "state's smoothest-running political machine" - by buying votes - since 1966. It certainly was not "working class values" that Bernanke learned from his local Jewish crime boss. To find out more about Bernanke's ties to the Jewish crime boss of South Carolina, I recommend my article, "The Fleecing of America: 9-11 and the Crisis on Wall Street."

Ben Bernanke worked for Alan Schafer for years.

TIME magazine says that Bernanke spent summers waiting tables at the South of the Border tourist trap, experiences that helped him appreciate working class values. What it doesn't tell you is that the man he worked for and who taught him those "working class values" was the crime boss of Dillon, South Carolina.

TIME magazine doesn't tell you that Alan Schafer, Ben's mentor and boss, went to prison for stealing elections.

The man who chose Bernanke to be man of the year, and who kept the serious crimes of Alan Schafer out of the story, is the managing editor of TIME magazine, Richard Stengel.

Richard Stengel, Managing Editor of TIME

Stengel also happens to be a close friend of the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, Alan Greenspan, and his journalist wife Andrea Mitchell. Here Stengel and Mitchell pose during TIME's cocktail party on May 8, 2009 in Washington, DC.


What a small world it is at the top. Everybody seems to know everyone else.

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

By John Coleman
February 11, 2009

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.

Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle’s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement. Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.

Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.

"Agent of Her Majesty" Maurice Frederick Strong
Strong, the founding chairman of Petro-Canada (1976-78) and former chairman of Ontario Hydro (1992-95), both Crown Corporations, is "an agent of Her Majesty." In Canada, Crown corporations are wholly owned and operated by the Canadian monarch, Elizabeth II, as the corporation's sole shareholder. This follows the legal premise that the British Crown, as an institution, owns all the property of government at the federal and provincial level. As the Canadian Encyclopedia says, "A central rationale of crown corporations is that the commercial activities of government, to be performed successfully, must be shielded from government intervention and legislative oversight."

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, “climate study” scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.

Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.

At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming." That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book “Earth in the Balance,” published in 1992.

So there it is. Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause célèbre of the media. After all, the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. Considerable controversy still surrounds the authorship of this article. However, I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer and he assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "Apparently.” People who were there have told me about that afternoon, but I have not located a transcript or a recording. People continue to share their memories with me on an informal basis. More evidence may be forthcoming.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. He might well stand beside me as a global warming denier.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s mea culpa as the actions of a senile old man. The next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate. From 1992 until today, he and most of his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when asked about us skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

As the science now stands, the global warming alarmist scientists say the climate is sensitive to a “radiative forcing” effect from atmospheric carbon dioxide which greatly magnifies its greenhouse effect on atmospheric warming. The only proof they can provide of this complex hypothesis is by running it in climate computer models. By starting the models in about 1980 they showed how the continuing increase in CO2 was step with a steady increase in average global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990’s and claim cause and effect. But, in fact, those last two decades of the 20th century were at the peak of a strong 24 year solar cycle, and the temperature increases actually may have been a result of the solar cycle together with related warm cycle ocean current patterns during that period.

That warming ended in 1998 and global temperatures (as measured by satellites) leveled off. Starting in 2002, computer models and reality have dramatically parted company. The models predicted temperatures and carbon dioxide would continue to rise in lock step, but in fact while the CO2 continues to rise, temperatures are in decline. Now global temperatures are in such a nose dive there is wide spread talk from climatologists about an impending ice age. In any case, the UN’s computer model “proof” has gone up in a poof.

Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists for this sinful footprint. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US Congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by the prohibiting of new refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over.

Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is hijacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

http://www.bollyn.com/index.php#article_11552

Global WARming

As I have previously pointed out:

Continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will more than wipe out any reduction in carbon from the government's proposed climate measures ...

The continuance of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars completely and thoroughly undermines the government's claims that there is a global warming emergency and that reducing carbon output through cap and trade is needed to save the planet.

I can't take anything the government says about carbon footprints seriously until the government ends the unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I now have some figures to back this up.

Professor Michael Klare noted in 2007:

Sixteen gallons of oil. That's how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis -- either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone.

And in 2008, Oil Change International released a report showing that:

• The war is responsible for at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) since March 2003. To put this in perspective, CO2 released by the war to date equals the emissions from putting 25 million more cars on the road in the US this year.

• Between March 2003 and October 2007 the US military in Iraq purchased more than 4 billion gallons of fuel from the Defense Energy Support Center, the agency responsible for procuring and supplying petroleum products to the Department of Defense. Burning these fuels has directly produced nearly 39 million metric tons of CO2 Just transporting 4 billion gallons of fuel to the military in Iraq consumed at least as much fuel as was delivered nearly doubling overall fuel-related emissions.

• Emissions from the Iraq War to date are nearly two and a half times greater than what would be avoided between 2009 and 2016 were California to implement the auto emission regulations it has proposed (but that the Bush Administration struck down).

• If the war were ranked as a country in terms of annual emissions, it would emit more CO2 each year than 139 of the world’s nations do, more than 60% of all countries on the planet.

The report also notes:

The emissions associated with the war in Iraq are literally unreported. Military emissions abroad are not captured in the national greenhouse gas inventories that all industrialized nations, including the United States, report under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It’s a loophole big enough to drive a tank through.

Of course, the escalation of the war in Afghanistan will lead to a huge surge in greenhouse gas emissions as well. As the Washington Post noted on December 15th:

The military is planning for thousands of additional tanker truck deliveries a month, big new storage facilities and dozens of contractors to navigate the landlocked country's terrain ...

The military's fuel needs are prodigious. According to the Government Accountability Office, about 300,000 gallons of jet fuel are delivered to Afghanistan each day, in addition to diesel, motor and aircraft gasoline. A typical Marine corps combat brigade requires almost 500,000 gallons of fuel per day, according to a recent study by Deloitte Analysis, a research group. Each of the more than 100 forward operating bases in Afghanistan requires a daily minimum of 300 gallons of diesel fuel, the study said.

The GAO report said that in June 2008 alone, 6.2 million gallons of fuel went for air and ground operations, while 917,000 gallons went for base support activities including lighting, running computers, and heating or cooling ...

Another measure of the fuel needs -- and the long-term planning associated with them -- can be seen in the number of solicitations for storage facilities being put forward in the past months.

The largest would construct a new bulk fuel storage system for Bagram. It would require tanks to hold 1.1 million gallons of fuel, along with pumps, controls and supporting facilities. The overall facility, including electric, water, sewer, curbs and security measures, is to cost up to $25 million.

Although Obama has said that U.S. forces would begin returning home in 18 months, the fuel storage facility at Bagram would take almost 15 months to build, once the contract is awarded early next year. The contract requires storage for 6 million gallons of U.S.-standard jet fuel, 3 million gallons of Russian standard jet fuel and 1 million gallons of diesel fuel. The facility must be capable of receiving fuel from up to 100 tank trucks a day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Facilities that can store 3 million gallons will be built in Ghazni and at Sharana.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/12/removing-war-from-global-warming.html

Homelessness on the Rise for Female Veterans

Rothschild Rues Difficulty Of Activating “Global Governance Agenda” At Copenhagen

Hypocritical descendent of oil barons lectures on climate change

Steve Watson, Infowars.net

Baron David De Mayer Rothschild, the youngest child of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, of the British wing of the Rothschild banking family, notes with regret that it is difficult to implement a world government, but that the climate change summit in Copenhagen is a venue to attempt it.

Rothschild made the comments in a recent interview with Bloomberg news, noting that there is too much fragmentation at the summit and too many different agendas being pushed.

“It’s past the point of talking. We know historically that the global governance sort of agenda to these issues is very hard to… with all the best intentions it’s very hard to actually activate.” Rothschild noted.

Watch the video:

The use of climate change alarmism to push a “global governance” agenda is now a common talking point amongst those who have effectively hijacked the environmental movement.

In 2000, then French President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented “the first component of an authentic global governance.”

Earlier this year at a forum in Oxford, England, Al Gore called for global governance in order to implement global agreements on climate change.

Gore’s statements were echoed later in the year by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who called for “an equitable global governance structure” to oversee a deal on tackling climate change.

General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, also recently called for the elite to, “Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide,”.

In spite of his family being directly involved in the first giant trusts and oil monopolies of the late 19th century, David De Mayer Rothschild’s recent book, 77 Essential Skills to Stop Climate Changes, calls for ordinary people to limit outward behavior and even work at home. The book was used as part of the PR blitz to accompany the Live Earth project in 2007.

During an appearance on the Alex Jones show in 2007, Rothschild denied that there was any agenda to push for a global carbon tax, now the central issue at the Copenhagen summit. Rothschild’s denial of any such plan just two years ago shows how incrementalism is being used to forward the “global governance” climate agenda he now speaks of.

During the same appearance Rothschild suggested that solar-system wide climate change did not exist and claimed that Jupiter, Mars and Saturn were closer to the sun than the Earth.

Flashback: July 6th 2007 – David Mayer de Rothschild On The Alex Jones Show

UN Chief: We Will Impose Global Governance

2010 Forecast: Transition from Globalization to World Government
Dynamics of what is currently taking place in the world