Moveover 'Climategate', Here's Why Even Skeptics Should Support the Climate Deal

What he leaves out is the fact that “Green Energy” is extremely expensive and inefficient. With billions of dollars in subsidies solar and wind still haven’t made any signifigant amount of power. Solar energy is simply not energy dense enough. If CO2 was that bad we should replace it with nueclear and/or enhanced geothermal not solar.

ER – couple of questions…

Wasn’t Co2 warming theory – based on dodgy data and code?

Isn’t this now “unproven” theory the core aspect of emissions trading, and the Copenhagen deal?

You mention lots of great ideas, but not how they are going to be paid for. Why is that?

The Indian government has finally laid out it’s plans for tackling climate change. They still need some debate on the detail, but overall it’s a good first step. I’m glad we’re finally showing leadership on this issue.

However the US and other developed nations are still playing truant. They are the ones who caused the problem to begin with and now they continue to hide from their responsibility despite great steps taken by developing nations.

We now need to put pressure on developed nations. Let’s get out of our comfort zones and take action.

12 December is the global day of action. I am gonna be there. Please join the movement. It’s the revolution of our era.

http://greenidol.in/volunteers/global-day-of-climate-action/

Please spread the word. It’s for our future

The Indian government has finally laid out it’s plans for tackling climate change. They still need some debate on the detail, but overall it’s a good first step. I’m glad we’re finally showing leadership on this issue.

However the US and other developed nations are still playing truant. They are the ones who caused the problem to begin with and now they continue to hide from their responsibility despite great steps taken by developing nations.

We now need to put pressure on developed nations. Let’s get out of our comfort zones and take action.

12 December is the global day of action. I am gonna be there. Please join the movement. It’s the revolution of our era.

http://greenidol.in/volunteers/global-day-of-climate-action/

Please spread the word. It’s for our future

Trish is cool and right on.

Santa Fe

Trish is cool and right on.

Santa Fe

Right on Keith.

The sheep out there trust their government besides how many of those sheep actually read a peer reviewed study or practice any form of critical thinking.

Right on Keith.

The sheep out there trust their government besides how many of those sheep actually read a peer reviewed study or practice any form of critical thinking.

The The fossil fuel industry is promoting carbon tax trades as in derivatives, they will more than make up for the lost business taken up by green industry.

In fact big oil will make more money through carbon trading than oil itself, if we let them ram policy into our Canadian parliament after Copenhagen.

Nothing new, government operatives post comments all the time and they pay their minions well.

The The fossil fuel industry is promoting carbon tax trades as in derivatives, they will more than make up for the lost business taken up by green industry.

In fact big oil will make more money through carbon trading than oil itself, if we let them ram policy into our Canadian parliament after Copenhagen.

Nothing new, government operatives post comments all the time and they pay their minions well.

Ben, you are right on. What’s more, like all the writers here; I see the IP addresses and routes here of any comments, let me tell you that the vast majority got to this site by googling “climategate”.

This criminal “Swifthack” (burglaries and break-ins of scientists’ computers and rummaging through a decade of emails to selectively find quotes that to an ignorant few might pass as obfuscation) truly is a criminal enterprise on a worldwide level, has now spread to attacks on Canadian scientists, and is the last desperate attempts by the industry that stands to lose money if the world shifts to green renewable energy. The fossil industry.

Other environmental writers have also told me of another strange pattern in comments in the first week after the email burglaries.

Daytimes from 9-5 the comments poured in from delayers. (Enough people commented on that… and then the pattern changed to mimic normal comment patterns…???)

Frankly, the picture that emerges IS of a delayer industry supplying paid commenters.

Mridul Chadha says Moveover Climategate’

How naive. Although you will get brownie points with the NWO criminals.

No, no, don’t investigate just shut up and pay your carbon taxes and get used to being a slave.

There are hundreds of covertly suppressed, clean and green advanced inventions sitting on the shelves of corrupt government houses black Ops transnational bankers. These treaties are a ruse and pretext for thousands of carbon taxes to rob the people in the name of the the new Carbon God. Carbon Taxes for the monopoly financiers to suck away trillions of our money to rule the world all in the name of the new crusade to save the planet while real environmental catastrophes are being swept under the astro-turf of brilliant idiots.

“Those who argue that the universe is entropic, do so because, like Aristotle, they deny that man is capable of elevating his mind above inductive and deductive forms of discursive rationality to the level of creative intellect.”

Nicolaus of Cusa in 1460.

You Sir may be working for your “masters” but I suggest you learn how to think on your own and hence investigate Nicolaus of Cusa.

Mridul Chadha says Moveover Climategate’

How naive. Although you will get brownie points with the NWO criminals.

No, no, don’t investigate just shut up and pay your carbon taxes and get used to being a slave.

There are hundreds of covertly suppressed, clean and green advanced inventions sitting on the shelves of corrupt government houses black Ops transnational bankers. These treaties are a ruse and pretext for thousands of carbon taxes to rob the people in the name of the the new Carbon God. Carbon Taxes for the monopoly financiers to suck away trillions of our money to rule the world all in the name of the new crusade to save the planet while real environmental catastrophes are being swept under the astro-turf of brilliant idiots.

“Those who argue that the universe is entropic, do so because, like Aristotle, they deny that man is capable of elevating his mind above inductive and deductive forms of discursive rationality to the level of creative intellect.”

Nicolaus of Cusa in 1460.

You Sir may be working for your “masters” but I suggest you learn how to think on your own and hence investigate Nicolaus of Cusa.

Interesting if I google “Jim Steele’s” and “Janet Holmes” comments above, these exact same comments comes up on several blogs.

Why do people copy and paste comments? Is that so just a tiny fraction of people can make a very loud voice?

Here’s this skeptics take. lets forget about the much more concept for a moment, and concern ourselves with carbon cuts, carbon trading and adaption fund. We don’t need any gov bureaucrat(idiot), dictating our carbon use. You feel me? I have no problem with any ecofreak group preaching conservation, people can act accordingly, if they so choose. Carbon trading is a scheme to get wall street types, and gov bureaucrats(idiots) richer, not interested. Adaption Fund? That’s the joke of human history. I’ve had enough of the welfare mindset thank you. I feel no quilt for my statements, because I like my life style. I am grateful of the ones that came before me, who used their innovative minds, to make life better for us.

I’m all for alternative sources when the market supports them, not until. I believe you must want to be controlled by gov, instead of you having control over your gov. You feel me?

Here’s this skeptics take. lets forget about the much more concept for a moment, and concern ourselves with carbon cuts, carbon trading and adaption fund. We don’t need any gov bureaucrat(idiot), dictating our carbon use. You feel me? I have no problem with any ecofreak group preaching conservation, people can act accordingly, if they so choose. Carbon trading is a scheme to get wall street types, and gov bureaucrats(idiots) richer, not interested. Adaption Fund? That’s the joke of human history. I’ve had enough of the welfare mindset thank you. I feel no quilt for my statements, because I like my life style. I am grateful of the ones that came before me, who used their innovative minds, to make life better for us.

I’m all for alternative sources when the market supports them, not until. I believe you must want to be controlled by gov, instead of you having control over your gov. You feel me?

1. If the climate change doubters’ arguments are correct, then decreasing carbon emission would not matter at all to the climate change – it is part of the natural process!

2. Yes, reducing carbon emission might reduce the damage made by human on the environmental conditions, but this requires sophisticated clean technologies that poor and developed countries do not possess! If the developed counties do not provide the necessary funding and technologies to these countries, then I don’t see how this global green action is going to succeed. Now we see that the developed countries are not that generous even to make initial promises on this issue. This makes one seriously doubt that all these green actions are actually political propaganda against developed countries, particularly China.

For more analysis of the issue behind climategate, I recommend you read:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/

Carbon emission standards lead to deindustrialisation from nations who have high standards, to those who don’t have them/ don’t care.

Next, farmers go out of business and there is less food in the world. This leads to less aid and more expensive food for the third world. Following this, mass starvation throughout the whole world.

All of this is based on liars and fraud. Well done.

Collaborative International action is a fantasy, because these agreements will surely be abrogated and will have no effect on climate. It is a pipe dream that other nations without economic staying power or moral compass will adhere to international CO2 cap and trade rubrics.

These bilateral agreements will fail due to parochial self-interest of nations.

While in theory some of the points in this article may be valid, the Copenhagen climate deal is NOT the way to go about it.

The Copenhagen deal will NOT reduce pollution. It will only shift it to other countries, taking the jobs and money of those who comply with Copenhagen with it.

It will mean fewer jobs, lower standard of living, and much, much higher taxes. Taxes so we can send all our money to these countries that we have ‘damaged’ with our horrible polluting ways.

It’s nothing but a scam. The climate has always changed. There has always been droughts and floods and hurricanes. Yes there’s some pollution here and there but the whole Copenhagen concept is just ludicrous if you really take the time to look at it. Or unless you stand to make multiple billions off, like Algore.

Read the Copenhagen papers yourself. Think for yourself. Don’t just repeat the same crap you hear on the nightly news or read in Algore’s photoshopped book.

While in theory some of the points in this article may be valid, the Copenhagen climate deal is NOT the way to go about it.

The Copenhagen deal will NOT reduce pollution. It will only shift it to other countries, taking the jobs and money of those who comply with Copenhagen with it.

It will mean fewer jobs, lower standard of living, and much, much higher taxes. Taxes so we can send all our money to these countries that we have ‘damaged’ with our horrible polluting ways.

It’s nothing but a scam. The climate has always changed. There has always been droughts and floods and hurricanes. Yes there’s some pollution here and there but the whole Copenhagen concept is just ludicrous if you really take the time to look at it. Or unless you stand to make multiple billions off, like Algore.

Read the Copenhagen papers yourself. Think for yourself. Don’t just repeat the same crap you hear on the nightly news or read in Algore’s photoshopped book.

While in theory some of the points in this article may be valid, the Copenhagen climate deal is NOT the way to go about it.

The Copenhagen deal will NOT reduce pollution. It will only shift it to other countries, taking the jobs and money of those who comply with Copenhagen with it.

It will mean fewer jobs, lower standard of living, and much, much higher taxes. Taxes so we can send all our money to these countries that we have ‘damaged’ with our horrible polluting ways.

It’s nothing but a scam. The climate has always changed. There has always been droughts and floods and hurricanes. Yes there’s some pollution here and there but the whole Copenhagen concept is just ludicrous if you really take the time to look at it. Or unless you stand to make multiple billions off, like Algore.

Read the Copenhagen papers yourself. Think for yourself. Don’t just repeat the same crap you hear on the nightly news or read in Algore’s photoshopped book.

The skeptic view:

It’s called government by accident. In Nazi Germany they got the trains to run like clockwork. Does that mean Hitler was cool?

It’s called freezing my a$$ off when the wind does not blow.

It’s called a global carbon trading bubble that, this time the G20 taxpayers can not afford.

It’s called making it less profitable for industries to operate in developed countries.

It’s called forcing the industries to move to developed countries where rules are slack.

It’s wealth distribution, from developed countries to developing, and brokers fees and a trillion dollar business.

It’s utterly naive and the originating science has ZERO evidence, only a bunch of crooked numerical models and millions of bleeding heart fools bending to get reamed.

It’s inflation and doom to the developed countries, and soon we will be hungry and cold, cutting down the trees.

Nature has this way of equalizing things.

I think more efficient and cleaner technology is needed, but it shouldn’t excuse scientific misconduct.

I have worked to better the environment through education and research at SF State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus. I think we can do our most important work by fixing wetlands. However I have become increasingly skeptical of CO2 induced warming. I tried to engage Mann’s RealClimate website in debate but often had posts deleted, or have a post attacked and then denied posting any replies. So I know first hand some of these scientists are willing to manipulate the appearance of science.

As a skeptic I see a warming which CO2 probably has some small impact. But I do not think natural variability has been well modeled. And the current warming may be no different than the Mideival warm period. What AGW proponents push is a perception of the hockey stick where climate was stable and slightly cooling and only recently shoots up. It creates an illusion that the Mideival Warm period and Little Ice Age never happened. However their proxies used to create the hockey stick have not withstood the test of time. Their proxies have shown a decline these past 50 years when observation said it has increased. This called into question the hockey stick and is why they felt they “must hide the decline”. The clearest article showing how Jones and Mann tried to misrepresent the past climate and mislead the public by “hiding the decline” has been written by Marc Sheppard. A must read that is well documented! Go to http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

Jurriaan Maessen

November 21, 2009

“It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.” George H.W. Bush addressing the General Assembly of the U.N, February 1, 1992

The machine of mass media is working overdrive now that the Copenhagen summit is approaching. All major media outlets have by now obviously received their talking-points which have an strangely similar ring about them all across the board. Even a superficial comparative study in the overall reporting reveals not only a stunning disregard for national sovereignty, but a willingness to support carbon-taxes imposed by a- as John P. Holdren puts it- “planetary regime”.

Oxford professor Dieter Helm: “I’m in favor of quite a low carbon tax to start with – for political economy reasons, to get it in place.”

Last month experts told the Second Committee Panel Discussion of the UN General Assembly that “a new regime of governance was under way in the global financial system.” The same is being said about global climate measures, global resource management and global development.

The mass media is not only setting the agenda themselves, they more often than not simply parrot the globalists that are being shoved in our face on a daily basis. Many of whom have a Ph.D. behind their name. Under the header ‘Carbon Tax’ is sensible, and perhaps inevitable, advocate says‘, the Los Angeles Times quotes Oxford professor Dieter Helm stating:

“(..) I’m in favor of quite a low carbon tax to start with – for political economy reasons, to get it in place, (…). Across Europe, my guess is within five years everybody will have a carbon tax…”

This, according to Helm, will make sure that the United States will eventually be forced into the global carbon tax policy as well:

“(…) is everybody else doing it? That’s a very good protection for politicians. The answer is yes, they are.”

Back in December of 2001, the Africa division of the UN Development Programme apparently already seriously considered such a tax:

“The main energy sources that would be affected by a carbon tax include coal, petroleum, kerosene and natural gas. The tax would be reflected in an increase in their price, at a level based on the capacity of each type of fuel to emit carbon dioxide.”

Answering the question who would collect the taxes and enforce such a global tax policy, the UN panel was quite clear:

“The panel said a new international tax organization should be created to assume all functions performed by existing institutions. It would serve as a global intergovernmental forum for international cooperation on all tax issues. It would also help resolve conflicts between countries and help them to increase tax revenue by fostering information exchanges and measures that could reduce tax evasion on investment and personal income earned at home and abroad.”

This sounds a lot like John P. Holdren doesn’t it, exclaiming in Ecoscience that “a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment” could impose global policy and enforce it. “Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime”, said Holdren, “could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.”

Furthermore, the UN panel advocated in 2001:

“We thus endorse the Commission’s proposal to create a global council at the highest political level to provide leadership on issues of global governance. The proposed council would be more broadly based than the G7 or the Bretton Woods institutions.”

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

In 2007, Reuters quoted Mr. Global Warming Himself, Al Gore as saying that a global carbon trading scheme could be “quite efficient if the world’s top polluters, the United States and China, fully joined.” Gore also stated that a direct tax on carbon would certainly be “an even simpler and more direct measure.”

It was the Bilderberg-appointed Herman Van Rompuy- the new EU-president- who stated recently that “The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.” He also announced that 2009 would be the “first year of global governance.” And he’s not the first to call for such global management. All people who occupy a position of power in the infrastructure of the New World Order have called for it since its very conception shortly after World War II.

As a preface to the coming Copenhagen summit in December, the United Nations Population Fund in a recently published ‘State of the Population 2009‘ is pushing for global reproductive health services. This means not only universal access to ‘family planning’ but also better access to abortion facilities. Humans, after all, are supposed to be the prime driver of climate change and therefore: less humans means honouring Mother Earth.

In the foreword, the executive director of the UNFPA, Thoraya Obaid addresses the fake global warming hype, saying that “floods, storms and rising seas” will soon envelope the planet if not for quick, decisive and global efforts to combat these calamities.

“A Copenhagen agreement that helps people to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and adapt to climate change by harnessing the insight and creativity of women and men would launch a genuinely effective long-term global strategy to deal with climate change.”

Global strategy. That’s the talking point we hear over and over again from all agencies, UN or otherwise, who have an interest in profiting from the deal they are proposing. Never mind that all nation-states who sign on to the Copenhagen treaty will effectively forfeit their representative systems to this global authority, deciding which taxes will be paid by which nation-state. In the end, all roads seem to lead to a “planetary regime” envisioned by the elite long before “global warming” was even heard of.

Jurriaan Maessen

November 21, 2009

“It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.” George H.W. Bush addressing the General Assembly of the U.N, February 1, 1992

The machine of mass media is working overdrive now that the Copenhagen summit is approaching. All major media outlets have by now obviously received their talking-points which have an strangely similar ring about them all across the board. Even a superficial comparative study in the overall reporting reveals not only a stunning disregard for national sovereignty, but a willingness to support carbon-taxes imposed by a- as John P. Holdren puts it- “planetary regime”.

Oxford professor Dieter Helm: “I’m in favor of quite a low carbon tax to start with – for political economy reasons, to get it in place.”

Last month experts told the Second Committee Panel Discussion of the UN General Assembly that “a new regime of governance was under way in the global financial system.” The same is being said about global climate measures, global resource management and global development.

The mass media is not only setting the agenda themselves, they more often than not simply parrot the globalists that are being shoved in our face on a daily basis. Many of whom have a Ph.D. behind their name. Under the header ‘Carbon Tax’ is sensible, and perhaps inevitable, advocate says‘, the Los Angeles Times quotes Oxford professor Dieter Helm stating:

“(..) I’m in favor of quite a low carbon tax to start with – for political economy reasons, to get it in place, (…). Across Europe, my guess is within five years everybody will have a carbon tax…”

This, according to Helm, will make sure that the United States will eventually be forced into the global carbon tax policy as well:

“(…) is everybody else doing it? That’s a very good protection for politicians. The answer is yes, they are.”

Back in December of 2001, the Africa division of the UN Development Programme apparently already seriously considered such a tax:

“The main energy sources that would be affected by a carbon tax include coal, petroleum, kerosene and natural gas. The tax would be reflected in an increase in their price, at a level based on the capacity of each type of fuel to emit carbon dioxide.”

Answering the question who would collect the taxes and enforce such a global tax policy, the UN panel was quite clear:

“The panel said a new international tax organization should be created to assume all functions performed by existing institutions. It would serve as a global intergovernmental forum for international cooperation on all tax issues. It would also help resolve conflicts between countries and help them to increase tax revenue by fostering information exchanges and measures that could reduce tax evasion on investment and personal income earned at home and abroad.”

This sounds a lot like John P. Holdren doesn’t it, exclaiming in Ecoscience that “a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment” could impose global policy and enforce it. “Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime”, said Holdren, “could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.”

Furthermore, the UN panel advocated in 2001:

“We thus endorse the Commission’s proposal to create a global council at the highest political level to provide leadership on issues of global governance. The proposed council would be more broadly based than the G7 or the Bretton Woods institutions.”

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

In 2007, Reuters quoted Mr. Global Warming Himself, Al Gore as saying that a global carbon trading scheme could be “quite efficient if the world’s top polluters, the United States and China, fully joined.” Gore also stated that a direct tax on carbon would certainly be “an even simpler and more direct measure.”

It was the Bilderberg-appointed Herman Van Rompuy- the new EU-president- who stated recently that “The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.” He also announced that 2009 would be the “first year of global governance.” And he’s not the first to call for such global management. All people who occupy a position of power in the infrastructure of the New World Order have called for it since its very conception shortly after World War II.

As a preface to the coming Copenhagen summit in December, the United Nations Population Fund in a recently published ‘State of the Population 2009‘ is pushing for global reproductive health services. This means not only universal access to ‘family planning’ but also better access to abortion facilities. Humans, after all, are supposed to be the prime driver of climate change and therefore: less humans means honouring Mother Earth.

In the foreword, the executive director of the UNFPA, Thoraya Obaid addresses the fake global warming hype, saying that “floods, storms and rising seas” will soon envelope the planet if not for quick, decisive and global efforts to combat these calamities.

“A Copenhagen agreement that helps people to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and adapt to climate change by harnessing the insight and creativity of women and men would launch a genuinely effective long-term global strategy to deal with climate change.”

Global strategy. That’s the talking point we hear over and over again from all agencies, UN or otherwise, who have an interest in profiting from the deal they are proposing. Never mind that all nation-states who sign on to the Copenhagen treaty will effectively forfeit their representative systems to this global authority, deciding which taxes will be paid by which nation-state. In the end, all roads seem to lead to a “planetary regime” envisioned by the elite long before “global warming” was even heard of.

Jurriaan Maessen

Infowars

November 16, 2009

“Political unification in some sort of world government will be required (…). Even though (…) any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy

Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment by Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and John P. Holdren.

As Lord Christopher Monckton pointed out, the Copenhagen conference at the beginning of next month is designed to eliminate national sovereignty in favor of a world government to replace it. With a stroke of the pen all UN-member-states will, by doing so, throw away years of prosperity in order to satisfy the transnational needs of a global elite, hellbent on destroying the last vestiges of freedom around the world in the name of “redistributing wealth”.

Make no mistake, if the ‘world leaders’ now announce they will not swallow this pill just yet, be sure that they will in the months after December. After all, they’ve been ordered to by their masters- who have proven themselves to be both cunning and patient.

After the Club of Rome in the early 1970s outlined its basic premise, that world population must decrease if the earth is to survive, all globalist subdivision started groaning like rusty old engines. In the seventies and part of the eighties, the propaganda was still far from subtle. When one scientist proclaimed that the entire world’s population must shrink to the size of a middle-sized country, another shouted that this won’t do at all, proposing instead to put a halt to new life completely.

Documents such as Ecoscience must be viewed in this bizarre context. Although dripping with eugenic devilry, these publications at least were quite upfront about it, proclaiming their mind-boggling monstrosities for all to see. At this stage, deciphering cryptic environmental texts was hardly necessary. However undesirable the situation, at least we knew exactly what they were up to because they said so to our face.

Today we find ourselves in quite another situation. As public resistance about these dehumanizing proposals grew steadily thanks to an informed Western middle-class, the eugenicists went underground, replacing their foul garments with seemingly fairer outfits.

With the help of UNESCO’s social engineers pouring oil into the machine, the propaganda became more streamlined and smooth throughout the 1990s and the beginning of this century. In the most brilliant move anyone could ever make, an ocean of euphemisms began to engulf the true ambitions of the Malthusians, to the point of classical Orwellian doublespeak and beyond. We are required nowadays to decode the complex linguistic trickery before we can even formulate a move to counter it. A crash course in the unraveling of these euphemisms may help us pierce through this language grid more easily. Bizarrely, the United Nations Population Fund will help us on our way.

In a off-worldly 1999 UNFPA directive- published to make sure journalists will not accidentally slip up and reveal the real deal- the author explains it’s better to rephrase the old grammar when it comes to population control issues:

“The term (“Population control”) is now out of favor with experts in the field, because it implies force- a negative thing to most. (…). To stress the voluntary nature of the actions sought, experts use terms like “stemming”, “stabilizing” or “slowing” population growth. Similarly, “family planning” is preferred to “birth control” a term that dates back to the time of Margaret Sanger’s crusade for women’s rights to use contraceptives.”

To namedrop Margaret Sanger in this context is very much hitting the nail on the head- although to claim she was a real-deal liberator of minds is absurd. Sanger was a eugenicist first and foremost. How did she define birth control in the Birth Control Review, May 1919, page 12?

“More children from the fit, less from the unfit – that is the chief aim of birth control.”

The UNFPA directive goes on to say that it’s better to use terms in public communiques such as:

“Birth spacing”, “reproductive health” and “women’s rights”; boosting “sustainable development”; and improving the earth’s “carrying capacity” and the human “quality of life”. These terms stress not sheer population numbers but the broader vision of global well-being.”

As a paper prepared for the UN’s ‘Expert Group Meeting on Population Dynamics and Climate Change’ states:

“everything possible should be done now to ensure that people the world over have access to good reproductive health and that this will be crucial for future generations, in terms of global climate as well as human welfare.”

Remember now, that the phrase “reproductive health” is not only being used to facilitate family planning centers around the globe, but also makes possible such things as portable abortion units- as it does in China for example, where women in the name of “reproductive health” are being offered the finest in abortion services the almighty State has to offer, right to their very doorstep.

“Women’s rights” is another one. It sounds good, no? Who, after all, would argue the right of women to do whatever they so please? The next line in UNESCO technical papers which usually follows goes something like this: “Climate change is a women’s rights issue”. Or, as one publication describes it: “The threats of climate change are not gender-neutral.”

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

“Women are key health, education, economic and resource managers”, states also the UN’s report of the international workshop on population-poverty-environment linkages. “They, and their children, are also those most likely to experience disproportionate effects of poverty and environmental stresses. Integrated programming should ensure that women are empowered to play the requisite managerial and decision-making roles. One entry point for linking population and the environment interventions is via coordinated and gender-sensitive environmental activities (e.g., water supply/sanitation or natural resource management) and reproductive health initiatives.”

Here we have it again: “reproductive health”. The juggling of words is an art mastered to perfection by the global elite and their willing underlings, that much is clear. Another important item on the agenda of the social engineers is that of integrating population reduction messages into a range of other, seemingly decoupled subject matters. We have for example a report from the UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia, encountering a problem while subjecting a group of students to the propaganda:

“Since the launching of a massive population education programme for the schools, the amount of reading materials alone, not to mention visuals and films, has increased enormously. It is therefore necessary to determine what materials to make available to children at different grade levels.”

That’s where the educators come in. Children, UNESCO figures, must be brought within its sphere of influence as soon as possible. Otherwise the parents will guide their futures and that would be detrimental to the plan to transform all humans into good ‘global citizens’.

“We cannot imagine how the people of all nations could move toward a more sustainable world without the contribution of educators from around the globe”, states a 2005 UNESCO technical paper.

“Sustainable world” means a world with just as much people the earth can carry. In 1972, another UNESCO document circulated within transnational circles with the creepy title ‘Learning to be: the world of education today and tomorrow‘. In this publication, promoting the emergence of a “new man for a new world”, the authors state their purpose:

“The new man must be capable of understanding the global consequences of individual behaviour, of conceiving of priorities and shouldering his share of the joint responsibility involved in the destiny of the human race.”

At the EuroNGO’s annual conference in 2008, the director of information and external relations division of the UN Population Fund was mighty glad that the Malthusians are on the rise again:

“(…) the media spotlight on global population has snapped back on in a way we haven’t seen in some decades. It dimmed when concerns about “overpopulation” last went out of fashion, but those concerns may now be getting a new lease of life.”

They may indeed.

Jurriaan Maessen

Infowars

November 14, 2009

“(…) Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and the oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DC’s and LDC’s, and including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and or each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” John P. Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977

The Copenhagen conference on climate change at the beginning of next month seeks to, according to its creators, “reach a new global accord to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to curb emissions of greenhouse gases”. UN-front man Ban Ki-Moon remarked at a preparation speech on the road to Copenhagen that “sooner or later there will be a higher price on carbon – imposed either by policy or by market forces.” All this just rolls off the tongs of these transnationalist as if they are whistling a tune while tending their garden. If there was no such thing as historic fact, it would sound noble, urgent, and necessary. Unfortunately, we know precisely what motivates the initiators of this global effort: profit, absolute control and- I almost forgot- depopulation of the world’s inhabitants. This garden the elite is cultivating is by no means a place of joy. It stinks of rotten weeds and dead foliage.

In this first of several articles, I set out to identify the blueprint of modern day eugenics and its intimate ties to the environmental movement. In fact, the more one researches this union, forged in the blood of millions in the last century, the more one realises that the anthropogenic global warming swindle is not just tied to eugenics. It is eugenics.

In 1968 a think-tank emerged out of the back alleys of the face-lifted eugenics movement called the Club of Rome. Nurtured from its very conception as a beacon of light to which all environmentalist ships should navigate, its creators knew that the green movement they had set out to create, was designed to blame man for the supposed predicament the earth was in. As a consequence the number of people should be reduced lest the earth crumble under his crushing weight. The only thing to be done, so argued the Club, was for a global body of power to enforce depopulation goals as decided upon by the global elite.

Of what people does this global elite consist? Well just google ‘Club of Rome members’ and compare the names on the membership lists with those on the list of attendants of the annual Bilderberg conferences and you will discover the very same cast of characters, setting up the rules in the New World Order. You’ll find Al Gore, David Rockefeller, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, and all the other enemies of all free humanity and their cronies.

In 1972, the self described “group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity” published their (in)famous “The Limits to Growth”. In this document the authors point-blank argue for the population to shrink if mother earth is to survive much longer: “The overwhelming growth in world population”, claim the authors, “caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent phenomenon, a result of mankind’s very successful reduction of worldwide mortality.”

This development is highly worrisome, says the Club of Rome. As possible solutions for this “problem” it proposes either the birthrate to be brought down “to equal the new, lower death rate”, or “the death rate must rise again.” The following example will show that these statements by the world’s upper elites are in no way innocent musings without consequence.

Contrary to popular belief, the original architect of China’s policies was neither Mao Zedong in a power-drunk whim nor a Party-sadist hatching eugenics in some sub-level torture chamber. According to anthropologist Susan Greenhalgh in her study ‘Just One Child: Science and Policy in Deng’s China’ the inspiration for the tyrannical move by the Chinese Communist Party was inspired first and foremost by the Club of Rome.

In the early seventies, a group of Chinese scientists visited several scientific conferences in Europe, and readily picked up on the ideas distributed by the Club of Rome. At the head of this Chinese delegation was a man credited for introducing China’s notorious one-child policies, source of so much hardship suffered by the Chinese people in the last decades.

Greenhalgh points out that the infamous policy “had roots in missile scientists’ exposure to and import of Club of Rome population concepts through international conferences in the 1970s.”

The ‘missile scientists’ Greenhalgh mentions, are Dr. Song Jian and company, visiting several conferences in Europe in the 1970s designed to further the glory and prestige of the People’s Republic of China around the world. They picked up and further developed several methods to calculate population rates on blueprint models used by the Club of Rome to calculate their scams into creation.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

The fact that the Club of Rome stands at the cradle of one-child policies may not come as a complete surprise to those who have read all the policy-papers issued from the seventies onward. The same Malthusian idea that triggered our current green movement and its obsession with man-made global warming mythology once inspired hardcore involuntary sterilization policies in the decades preceding World War II.

In order to force a rising death rate into being one needs to create “a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in a vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.”

In the 1991 publication “The First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Rome” by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, the common denominator that the world would need to rally around was identified in all clarity:

“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.”

This contrived and purposeful enemy arrived in the shape of man-made global warming. And to think that all of us gullible gadgets were fooled into believing that any climate change was caused by that big lamp in the sky, determining not just earth’s overall temperatures but those of all planets in the solar system.

It just goes to show that the scam is perpetrated on such an unprecedented scale, that few dare question its validity. The entire thing of course boils down to the old Nazi proverb: the bigger the lie, the easier the sell. The United Nations, the globalist foremost salesman, was designated to carry the message along to all the world’s ‘regions’ and all nation-states falling under her jurisdiction. The division of the UN deemed most qualified to do the job was UNESCO, the scientific arm deciding what educational programs are to be distributed amongst the world’s universities and primary schools. On June 15th of this year, Martin Lees, Secretary General of the Club of Rome gave a speech to UNESCO- social engineers in which he admits that:

“We in the Club of Rome have had a long relationship with UNESCO. We look forward to developing our future collaboration so that we can advance our understanding and cooperation to promote action on the critical global issues which will determine the future of us all at this difficult moment in history.”

To understand what this collaboration between the Club of Rome and UNESCO will specifically entail, Mr. Lees provides us with the agenda leading up to and following the Copenhagen conference next month. Just so you know what to expect from the social engineers in the year to come:

“In October 2009, we will focus at our Annual General Assembly in Amsterdam on “Environment, Energy and Economic Recovery” focused on the key issues for the Copenhagen Climate Conference. In February 2010 we will tackle Cluster Three, on International Development. In April 2010 we will focus on Cluster Four, Social Transformation and in July 2010, on Peace and Security. The Programme will conclude with a major event in November 2010.”

The agenda shows that the Copenhagen conference is not an isolated happening. It is just one piece of the overall global architecture the elite is constructing and with which it means to consolidate power in the 21st century. Or, as the Secretary General of the Club of Rome puts it:

“Issues of international governance and institutional architecture will be critical in particular to the effective implementation of a post-Kyoto Treaty. To address the underlying drivers of climate change, institutional mechanisms must be introduced or adapted to implement and coordinate new policies in key areas of concentration such as: finance; science and technology; human resource development; information and communications; and capacity building. And the issue of “climate justice” will be central to achieving any agreement and to the acceptance of any treaty.”

Irrespective of these world players’ vested interest in such an architecture, they all dance to the tune of eugenics- whether they are aware of it or not. It can be to further their career or some sadist pleasure in usurping innocence; whatever their motivation, they have openly declared themselves to be on the opposite site of humanity.

Jurriaan Maessen

Infowars

November 14, 2009

“(…) Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and the oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DC’s and LDC’s, and including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and or each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” John P. Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977

The Copenhagen conference on climate change at the beginning of next month seeks to, according to its creators, “reach a new global accord to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to curb emissions of greenhouse gases”. UN-front man Ban Ki-Moon remarked at a preparation speech on the road to Copenhagen that “sooner or later there will be a higher price on carbon – imposed either by policy or by market forces.” All this just rolls off the tongs of these transnationalist as if they are whistling a tune while tending their garden. If there was no such thing as historic fact, it would sound noble, urgent, and necessary. Unfortunately, we know precisely what motivates the initiators of this global effort: profit, absolute control and- I almost forgot- depopulation of the world’s inhabitants. This garden the elite is cultivating is by no means a place of joy. It stinks of rotten weeds and dead foliage.

In this first of several articles, I set out to identify the blueprint of modern day eugenics and its intimate ties to the environmental movement. In fact, the more one researches this union, forged in the blood of millions in the last century, the more one realises that the anthropogenic global warming swindle is not just tied to eugenics. It is eugenics.

In 1968 a think-tank emerged out of the back alleys of the face-lifted eugenics movement called the Club of Rome. Nurtured from its very conception as a beacon of light to which all environmentalist ships should navigate, its creators knew that the green movement they had set out to create, was designed to blame man for the supposed predicament the earth was in. As a consequence the number of people should be reduced lest the earth crumble under his crushing weight. The only thing to be done, so argued the Club, was for a global body of power to enforce depopulation goals as decided upon by the global elite.

Of what people does this global elite consist? Well just google ‘Club of Rome members’ and compare the names on the membership lists with those on the list of attendants of the annual Bilderberg conferences and you will discover the very same cast of characters, setting up the rules in the New World Order. You’ll find Al Gore, David Rockefeller, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, and all the other enemies of all free humanity and their cronies.

In 1972, the self described “group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity” published their (in)famous “The Limits to Growth”. In this document the authors point-blank argue for the population to shrink if mother earth is to survive much longer: “The overwhelming growth in world population”, claim the authors, “caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent phenomenon, a result of mankind’s very successful reduction of worldwide mortality.”

This development is highly worrisome, says the Club of Rome. As possible solutions for this “problem” it proposes either the birthrate to be brought down “to equal the new, lower death rate”, or “the death rate must rise again.” The following example will show that these statements by the world’s upper elites are in no way innocent musings without consequence.

Contrary to popular belief, the original architect of China’s policies was neither Mao Zedong in a power-drunk whim nor a Party-sadist hatching eugenics in some sub-level torture chamber. According to anthropologist Susan Greenhalgh in her study ‘Just One Child: Science and Policy in Deng’s China’ the inspiration for the tyrannical move by the Chinese Communist Party was inspired first and foremost by the Club of Rome.

In the early seventies, a group of Chinese scientists visited several scientific conferences in Europe, and readily picked up on the ideas distributed by the Club of Rome. At the head of this Chinese delegation was a man credited for introducing China’s notorious one-child policies, source of so much hardship suffered by the Chinese people in the last decades.

Greenhalgh points out that the infamous policy “had roots in missile scientists’ exposure to and import of Club of Rome population concepts through international conferences in the 1970s.”

The ‘missile scientists’ Greenhalgh mentions, are Dr. Song Jian and company, visiting several conferences in Europe in the 1970s designed to further the glory and prestige of the People’s Republic of China around the world. They picked up and further developed several methods to calculate population rates on blueprint models used by the Club of Rome to calculate their scams into creation.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

The fact that the Club of Rome stands at the cradle of one-child policies may not come as a complete surprise to those who have read all the policy-papers issued from the seventies onward. The same Malthusian idea that triggered our current green movement and its obsession with man-made global warming mythology once inspired hardcore involuntary sterilization policies in the decades preceding World War II.

In order to force a rising death rate into being one needs to create “a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in a vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.”

In the 1991 publication “The First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Rome” by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, the common denominator that the world would need to rally around was identified in all clarity:

“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.”

This contrived and purposeful enemy arrived in the shape of man-made global warming. And to think that all of us gullible gadgets were fooled into believing that any climate change was caused by that big lamp in the sky, determining not just earth’s overall temperatures but those of all planets in the solar system.

It just goes to show that the scam is perpetrated on such an unprecedented scale, that few dare question its validity. The entire thing of course boils down to the old Nazi proverb: the bigger the lie, the easier the sell. The United Nations, the globalist foremost salesman, was designated to carry the message along to all the world’s ‘regions’ and all nation-states falling under her jurisdiction. The division of the UN deemed most qualified to do the job was UNESCO, the scientific arm deciding what educational programs are to be distributed amongst the world’s universities and primary schools. On June 15th of this year, Martin Lees, Secretary General of the Club of Rome gave a speech to UNESCO- social engineers in which he admits that:

“We in the Club of Rome have had a long relationship with UNESCO. We look forward to developing our future collaboration so that we can advance our understanding and cooperation to promote action on the critical global issues which will determine the future of us all at this difficult moment in history.”

To understand what this collaboration between the Club of Rome and UNESCO will specifically entail, Mr. Lees provides us with the agenda leading up to and following the Copenhagen conference next month. Just so you know what to expect from the social engineers in the year to come:

“In October 2009, we will focus at our Annual General Assembly in Amsterdam on “Environment, Energy and Economic Recovery” focused on the key issues for the Copenhagen Climate Conference. In February 2010 we will tackle Cluster Three, on International Development. In April 2010 we will focus on Cluster Four, Social Transformation and in July 2010, on Peace and Security. The Programme will conclude with a major event in November 2010.”

The agenda shows that the Copenhagen conference is not an isolated happening. It is just one piece of the overall global architecture the elite is constructing and with which it means to consolidate power in the 21st century. Or, as the Secretary General of the Club of Rome puts it:

“Issues of international governance and institutional architecture will be critical in particular to the effective implementation of a post-Kyoto Treaty. To address the underlying drivers of climate change, institutional mechanisms must be introduced or adapted to implement and coordinate new policies in key areas of concentration such as: finance; science and technology; human resource development; information and communications; and capacity building. And the issue of “climate justice” will be central to achieving any agreement and to the acceptance of any treaty.”

Irrespective of these world players’ vested interest in such an architecture, they all dance to the tune of eugenics- whether they are aware of it or not. It can be to further their career or some sadist pleasure in usurping innocence; whatever their motivation, they have openly declared themselves to be on the opposite site of humanity.

Wow, did you guys leave a lot out.

Here’s the document to check, it’s easy to find:

FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2

Pay particular attention to Notes 36, 37 & 38, pages 18 & 19,

This is the “revised negotiating text” for the draft treaty prepared in Bonn, GE, this past August. As is, it will give an unelected world government direct power over all financial and trading markets, as well as power over all elected governments of the nations that sign the treaty. The proposed new supranational bureaucratic entity will also have the power to require wealthier nations to redistribute up to 2% of their annual gross domestic product to third-world countries in “reparation” for a “climate debt” now refuted by more than 31,000 scientists. The 2,500 who have been pushing this thing have already benefited monetarily from grants in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

You want to write more articles on this? Why not start with the truth, which means you cover everything, not just those bits you think will help your case.

Lol, looks like college brainwashed you Mr. Mridul Chadha.

“But one does not need to believe in climate change to support the potential climate deal which is scheduled to replace the Kyoto Protocol after 2012.”

What a ridiculous thing to say, wake up!