Tue 21 Sep 2010
IPCC Boss: EU´s “Man Made Global Warming” Is Politically Commissioned Dogma - Not Science. Climate Disruptions” Is Therefore Suggested
Summary: After having woven a web of lies about global warming, using enormous costs, energy and imagination, the globalist elite had to see their money maker and key to their communist world state, namely “global warming”, having been so thoroughly exposed as a pathetic lie that it is no longer usable. In desperation, Pres. Obama’s Science Czar, the depopulation prophet, John Holdren, is trying to rescue the pieces of this invaluable tool by giving it a new name: “climate disruptions”. This name has the advantage of being pliable so as to make people believe in the need for a world government for global solutions to global problems - whether it’s too hot or too cold, too dry or too wet, too calm or stormy, too long winters or summers etc. The mishap was first and foremost that a severe winter in the northern hemisphere and a cold summer in the southern hemisphere in 2010 were not seen by people as global warming - despite untrue bought “climatologists´” assurances of the contrary. Additionally, a high level investigation of the IPCC found that there was “little evidence” of its claims about global warming. Indeed, it urged the IPCC to increase its credibility by only bringing scientifically proven climate predictions instead of opinions according to political desires - and to reconsider the chairman’s continued position. The Chairman of the IPCC, the Indian Pachauri, is pleased that the truth about the IPCC has come out so he can stop supplying non-scientific politically commissioned work - because he recognizes that it is the politicians who have decided the IPCC´s and East Anglia University´s ( leaked e-mails) doomsday prophecies of global warming due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It also appears that the EU´s ETS trading of CO2 in the climate exchanges is nothing more than wasteful boondoggle. Nevertheless, the EU will continue to do so - even cut CO2 emissions by 30% instead of 20%, because the EU has accepted global warming as an established indisputable dogma and looks away from true science. And this is also still working well with the brainwashed Europeans. The whole climate / environmentalist / ideology/religion originated from a report that John F. Kennedy ’s Defense Minister, John McNamara ordered at the Hudson Institute, a branch of the Council on Foreign Relations, to secure the power of government of that party for ever by a substitute for the only safe way to do it: war. Rockefeller’s Club of Rome picked the canard up and by infiltration of the EU, this Club had it made one of the EU´s pillars, the Euromediterranean-immigration being another “merit” of this Club. Now the U.S. has lost this compensation - which may be very dangerous.
The global “warmimg” lie has been exposed so mercilessly that most people do not believe it any longer. So, in stead of global warming, Pres. Obama´s Climate Czar, John Holdren, who hates mankind and wants to reduce it severely suggests the phrase “climate disruption”.
Fox News 16 Sept. 2010: John Holdren said that the impact from greenhouse gas emissions covers a broad “disruption” of climate patterns ranging from precipitation to storms to hot and cold temperatures. “The term “global warming” makes the cause easy to ridicule whenever there’s a snowstorm. They’re trying to come up with more politically palatable ways to sell some of this stuff “, said Republican Adam Geller.
Fox News: The Green $windle. Surprisingly, the latest report admits that the real purpose of the “global warming hoax” is to establish a global dictatorship via a “global carbon tax” and “cap and trade” regulation. Video embedded.
The construction of the global warming fraud
The tale of man made global warming has a history of incremental deception, dating from the John F.Kennedy administration up to today´s EU. G. Edward Griffin wrote: “Defense Secretary Robert McNamara – later World Bank director – commissioned the “Report From Iron Mountain”. The study’s premise is that historically the only means by which a government has ever been able to “secure the subordination of citizens to the state” is war. War is used to make the masses put up with all kinds of privation, taxation, and controls without complaint. No amount of sacrifice in the name of victory is rejected. Resistance is viewed as treason. Report From Iron Mountain explains that the war system may have to be replaced because “it may now be possible to create a world government in which all nations will be disarmed and disciplined by a world army, a condition which we will call peace.” Here is the origin of the stratagem to promote ecological doom as the new enemy that threatens the entire world. The threat need not be real, provided the masses can be convinced it is real. Credibility is the key, not reality.” Furthermore: “It is entirely possible that the development of a sophisticated form of slavery may be an absolute prerequisite for social control in a world at peace. As a practical matter, conversion of the code of military discipline to a euphemized form of enslavement would entail surprisingly little revision.”
This clever move was followed up by Rockefeller´s Communist Club of Rome, refounded at Rockefeller´s Villa Serbelloni, Italy, with “Limits to Growth” in 1973 and “The first Global Revolution” from 1991, preaching mankind´s overconsumption/depletion of Mother Earth´s resources due to overpopulation , stating (p.75: “We need enemies…. In our search for a common enemy we came up with pollution, global warming, famine water shortages and the like would fit the bill!!! …However, these phenomena are only symptoms.Our real enemy is humanity itself.”
In 1989 Edmund de Rothschild declared CO2 to be the cause of a global warming and a source of big profit – based on twisted computer models. His good friend, Maurice Strong made this unfounded postulation the basis of the UNEP, as well as the UN´s Communist policy for world governance and redistribution of western wealth in their Soviet-like Agenda 21– promoted through UNEP´s brainchild, the International Panel on Climate Change. Steven Rockefeller, Michael Gorbachev (Club of Rome member) and Maurice Strong used this lie about man made global warming to relaunch Lenin´s Communism in the “Earth Charter”, which was further developed into the Gaia Religion associated with the religious Ark of Hope and Gaia-hymns and prayers and here in pagan style – the Earth then being launched by James Lovelock as a living, breathing goddess. Club of Rome Member, Al Gore, is the now the fallen star of climatism and the rising star of billionaires – whereas Club of Rome Member, Bill Gates, does what he can to live up to the program of the Club of Rome to reduce mankind – the “cause” of his postulated CO2–global warming scam - by 15% by means of vaccines and sterilisations. As shown below, the EU has now made the CO2 hoax one of its political pillars to promote the New World Order (see videos on right margin of this blog) in intimate collaboration between the EU and the Club of Rome. Club of Rome Member, Jacques Delors, was the mastermind behind the EU´s second pillar, the Euromediterranean Project. The parodic UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen was based on a series of forged information:1. NASA-GISS repeatedly caught redhanded forging global temperatures, 2.the Climategate, and 3. the Jamal, and the 4. IPCC-Worldgate, 5.the Amazongate, 6.the Himalayagate scandals and even more.
The card house collapses - at last
The Express 1 Sept. 2010: A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.
It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof. The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report. The IAC, which comprises the world’s top science academies including the UK’s Royal Society, made recommendations to the IPCC to “enhance its credibility and independence” after the Himalayan glaciers report, which severely damaged the reputation of climate science.
It condemned the panel – set up by the UN to ensure world leaders the best scientific advice on climate change – for its “slow and inadequate response” after the damaging errors emerged. Among the blunders in the 2007 report were claims that 55 per cent of the Netherlands was below sea level when the figure is 26 per cent. The claim that glaciers would melt by 2035 was also rejected. Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.”
The review also cast doubt on the future of IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri. Earlier this year, the Daily Express reported how he had no climate science qualifications but held a PhD in economics and was a former railway engineer. Dr Pachauri has been accused of a conflict of interest, which he denies, after it emerged that he has business interests attracting millions of pounds in funding, i.a. from taxpayers over the next five years. Speaking after the review was released yesterday, Dr Pachauri said: “We have the highest confidence in the science behind our assessments. “The scientific community agrees that climate change is real. Greenhouse gases have increased as a result of human activities and now far exceed pre-industrial values.”
The Times of India 3 Sept. 2010: Interviewing IPCC boss Rajendra Pachauri: Climate disaster is Politics and ethics – not science (on 18 April 2011 I found the controversial parts removed from the article)
Q: Anything in the UN probe report you completely or partly disagree with? A: They have talked about quantifying uncertainties. To some extent, we are doing that, though not perfectly. But the issue is that in some cases, you really don’t have a quantitative base by which you can attach a probability or a level of uncertainty that defines things in quantitative terms. And there, let’s not take away the importance of expert judgment.
Q: Does this raise a larger issue of how science is used by society? And is there a political guidance to it? A: Sure… Let’s face it, we are an intergovernmental body and our strength and acceptability of what we produce is largely because we are owned by governments. If that was not the case, then we would be like any other scientific body that maybe producing first-rate reports but don’t see the light of the day because they don’t matter in policy-making. Now clearly, if it’s an inter-governmental body and we want governments’ ownership of what we produce, obviously they will give us guidance of what direction to follow. That is exactly what this committee has recommended that we get out of — policy prescriptions.
At the meeting, we dwelt at length on Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which says the central objective of the convention is to prevent the anthropogenic interference with the climate system which is in terms of ecosystem, ensuring food security and ensuring that development can take place.
Q: So the issue of equity is central to the next report? A: Certainly, but not only equity, we have also used the word ‘ethics’.
Yahoo 30 Aug. 2010 Reuters: – The U.N. climate panel, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, should make predictions only when it has solid evidence and should avoid policy advocacy, scientists said in a report on Monday that called for thorough reform of the body. The UN fears that this focus on the IPCC´s errors may damage the UN´s postulation on man made global warming.
John Rosenthal, policy review » no. 162: The real culprit in the corruption of the scientific process and the promotion of climate alarmism is named again and again in the East Anglia e-mails and documents– but with many different names, like “dgxii, dgxi fp5 fp6 fp7 life enrich.” What do they mean?
They are acronyms for: the European Union. All the designations refer either to departments of the European Commission or EU funding schemes. “dgxii” is the acronym by which the Commission’s Directorate General for Research was formerly designated, and “ dgxi” was the acronym for the Directorate General for the Environment.
In just the first three years (2007–09) of the current Framework Programme, the European Commission has already funded 28 projects on climate change for a total eu contribution, according to provisional data, of some € 116,271,772. The University of East Anglia is a partner institution in four of these projects.
The data in it clearly reflect the importance of EU funding for the “climate research” agenda of Jones and the CRU. Jones’s total haul falls to £4,379,264 for the roughly decade-and-a-half (1990–2006) covered by the spreadsheet. Of this amount, some £1,882,706 — or 43 percent — came from the European Union. Moreover, the importance of the European funding clearly increases with time, representing some 48percent of the project-related grant monies after 2000< and fully 52 percent after 2002. The latter date is of particular significance for European “climate activism,” since it was in 2002 that the European Union and all its then-member states simultaneously submitted their ratifications of the Kyoto Protocol, the eu’s showcase international initiative for “combating” climate change.
“Promoting research that supports EU policies” is, after all, one of the stated “main strategic objectives” of the Research dg’s framework programmes: Dogmatism – not science.
Indeed, the joint European Council/European Parliament decision adopting Framework Programme promises “a new approach . . . which should allow the political objectives of Community research policy to be reached more easily. The decision identifies ten thematic areas for research support and “community action.” For each of them, a “rationale” is provided and key “activities” are identified. The rationale for including “energy” among the ten areas is explained by, among other things, “the need to curb dramatically emissions of greenhouse gases in order to mitigate the devastating consequences of climate change.” In keeping with this rationale, “CO2 capture and storage technologies for zero emission power generation” is identified as a key “activity.” Not surprisingly, “Environment (including climate change)” is another of the ten thematic areas. The “rationale” provided for its inclusion notes that “earth’s natural resources and the man-made environment are under intense pressure from . . . climate variability and warming at local, regional and global scales.”
In other words, the EU’s funding for climate research is based on the dogma that the science is “settled,” the debate “over.” That the earth is warming, that the causes are anthropogenic. Skeptics, so to say, need not apply.
The program is thus at variance with the very nature of the normal scientific process. While decreeing empirical truths was policy of the church in the Medieval Ages it has nothing to do with science in the 21st century.
EU funding will favor dogma over science. The centerpiece of EU “climate change mitigation” efforts is, after all, the Kyoto protocol. Indeed, the Kyoto protocol has arguably been the single most high-profile eu policy initiative bar none. In all probability, the emissions-trading scheme at the heart of the Kyoto arrangements amounts to nothing more than an enormous and wasteful boondoggle - as would the development of “carbon capture” technologies, for instance.
Obama´s Climate Czar, John Holdren, is not alone in wanting to improve our climate by killing people. Thus Bill Gates sees humanity making the earth uninhabitable through global warming. He therefore wants to reduce it by vaccinations, sterilisation, health care and not treating sick old persons. Finnish environmentalist guru, Pentti Linkola, is said to gain more and more elitist supporters for his view to send climate change deniers into eco-gulag prison camps to be reeducated - or better to have the vast majority of humans killed in a world war with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite in order to save earth from man-made climate change.
In Chapter 24 of The Creature from Jekyll Island © 2002, G. Edward Griffin writes about the “Report from Iron Mountain”: “The document itself hints that it was commissioned by the Department of Defense under Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara (CFR-Mitglied), and was produced by the Hudson Institute. It was stated at the beginning of the Report that morality was not an issue. Its sole concern was how to perpetuate the existing government. Griffin mentions a long series of CFR members, who promoted the environment scam from the beginning. “The environmental movement was created by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). It is a substitute for war that they hope will become the emotional and psychological foundation for world government.”
The Report describes how antisocial elements were previously enrolled in armies and pacified there. In the New World Order, they will be enrolled in Youth brigades (see it here) to fight environmental dangers – thus becoming the saviours of the planet!!
As for the Hudson Institute: In fact it is a compact of Council on Foreign Relations people and it is serving as a front for the New World Order. David Rockefeller was its president 1970–1985. This club, the invisible US Government, where Hillary Clinton states to take her orders, was founded in 1921 – and taken over by the forces behind the the Federal Reserve (Rockefeller, Rothschild, Warburg, J.P. Morgan) – and control the media since 1917 and here. Its purpose is to rule the world. The Club of Rome and here – also a Rockefeller Club – took the heritage and infected all governments and many NGOs on this planet. The intertwining between the Club of Rome and the EU explains, why the illuminist EU (explanatory statement) today stands as the standard bearer of the CFR-illuministically conceived climate ideology. US Senator Jay Rockefeller is a passionate champion of CO2-cap-and storage at our cost.
6 Responses to “ IPCC Boss: EU´s “Man Made Global Warming” Is Politically Commissioned Dogma - Not Science. Climate Disruptions” Is Therefore Suggested ”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.