A Project Humanbeingsfirst Document: Global Warming / Climate Change

Global Warming / Climate Change - What's it all About?

Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

Global Warming Revisited 2016: “Global warming has become a new religion”

So, is there, or isn't there, man-made Global Warming? Establishments and their scientists worldwide religiously claim there is. Their detractors religiously claim there isn't. Other detractors suggest climate change may be real but is not principally due to man's activity. That it is predominantly a natural cyclic phenomenon based on the sun's activity. While others suggest that the alarmist attitude is to Machiavellianly fashion a boogieman to usher in carbon credit as pretext in order to curtail humanity's growth and population explosion. Whom to believe? What to believe? Is science really divorced from political science? Is pseudo science being used to globally force an elitist agenda down mankind's throat? What a Hegelian Mind-fck!

Summary

Caption 'On thin Ice – The hockey stick graph fraud' Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 ----- So, is there, or isn't there, man-made Global Warming? What a Hegelian Mind-fck! (image source The Daily Mail UK, Feb 14, 2010)

Caption Graph Reality Versus Alarm --- Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming (The Wall Street Journal, op-ed February 21, 2012)

Caption Graph Reality Versus Alarm --- Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming 'From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.' (image source The Wall Street Journal, op-ed February 21, 2012)

Caption Graph Annual Global Mean Surface Temperature Anomalies “No warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995 (the red fuzz represents the error ‘bars’)” (Image source MIT Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Richard Lindzen, via WUWT, March 11, 2008)

My shrewd take on this question is that so long as ushering carbon credit is the principal underlying agenda of Global Governance, so long as global warming menace is the means employed by the United Nations Agenda 21 to forcibly induce changes in attitude and behavior that give preference to the natural processes of “Gaia” over human existence and human experience, so long as political will and its legalisms continue to be enacted on the core premise laid out in the Club of Rome report “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”, the principal focus of the public's, as well as the scientists', and all the national and international political pied pipers' attention should not be on this red herring question of is there or isn't there Global Warming.

Climate change due to sun's activity is a natural and cyclic phenomenon. To overload that phenomenon with the Machiavellian motivation to search “for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like,” is a cunning misdirection that is sucking up the productive energies of well-intentioned and concerned people, while enlisting useful idiots at the grass-roots level to the cause of UN Agenda 21.

The common public attention should instead be focused on the Carbon Credit scam and the Global Governance agenda under UN Agenda 21 which is being diabolically legalized using a multiplicity of propaganda covers including the fear of Climate Change in order to lend that exercise “legal” and political legitimacy.

The subversion by misdirection is worldwide --- no statesman who has any standing, is standing up to this Big Lie. This grotesque reality of universal co-option was most perceptively captured in 1970 by a former FBI agent after reading Carroll Quigley's 1966 book Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, with these portentous words:

'The real value of Tragedy and Hope ... [is the] bold and boastful admission by Dr. Quigley that there actually exists a relatively small but powerful group which has succeeded in acquiring a choke-hold on the affairs of practically the entire human race. Of course we should be quick to recognize that no small group could wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks of life were “in on the take” and were willing to knuckle down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the scenes. As we shall see, the network has succeeded in building its power structure by using tremendous quantities of money (together with the vast influence it buys) to manipulate, intimidate, or corrupt millions of men and women and their institutions on a world-wide basis.' (W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, pg. 6)

The tortuous reality of global co-option, as stated by the powers that be themselves, is that:

“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending [the system], will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”

Today, in the latter part of the second decade of the twenty-first century, the empirical reality around me just tells me that it is only a matter of time before carbon credit is a done deal, a fait accompli. The red herring question whether or not there is Global Warming or Climate Change due to man's activity would soon become a moot point as global masses come to accept and live in growth chains under the United Nations Agenda 21. Unlike in nuclear fission reaction which requires compression pressure to increase to the point of critical mass to set off the nuclear chain reaction to make a nuclear explosion, mankind does not appear to have such a critical mass of compression. We have demonstrated throughout our short history on earth how much we are able to be oppressed with ease and still get used to it --- mankind's innumerable prophets' lofty platitudes of boldly casting aside the chains of servitude notwithstanding.

This is what the powers that be are banking on --- our infinite capacity to not just voluntarily accept servitude, but under the right set of perception management / psychologically persuasive / pharmacological cocktails, even come to love it. Aldous Huxley had called this latter control the “ultimate in malevolent revolution”. That is the path which has been ordained for humanity by the powers that be and it is not obvious how hoi polloi can effectively counter it before it is fait accompli. Platitudes abound, including my own two cents worth. These look rather nice on paper, or from pulpits and podiums, even appear self-evident, but, in the history of civilizations that is recorded, has never come to pass en masse. In our modernity which is characterized by universal deceit, when just speaking the plain truth is deemed to be a “revolutionary act”, when false hopes and false prophets shepherd the herd to this and that form of “awakening” and run them in circles, the real ray of hope perhaps comes from witnessing the daily courage of resistance of the common man in places like Palestine.

To percolate that courage upwards, from oppression by visible bayonet that is resisted through the fight or flight natural response, to oppression by the more intangible mind-behavior control methods when one is made to love one's servitude and consequently disarmed of all courage to resist ab initio, is the hard challenge. A challenge for those few who do understand the system and are neither interested in its profits and nor so dependent upon its favours that it can stop them without killing them.

Here is an excerpt from statements of dissenting scientists worldwide which puts an immediate end to the Big lie of “consensus”. The latest version of this 2008 excerpted report is the December 8, 2010 U.S. Senate Minority Report ( http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf ) which updates this 2008 number of More Than 700 (Previously 650), to More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims to Debunk Fading “Consensus”. It begs the question why newsmedia, politicians, scholars, pulpits, governments, just ignore it. The self-evident answer – those who know are already playing in the shell game. And those who don't know? At least some among them refuse to know but think they know enough to write a whole handbook on it: Unprecedented Climate Mobilization: A Handbook for Citizens and Their Governments. The rest --- well, efforts like these is for their sake.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.
“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.
“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.
“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)

Backdrop

There is an overarching social theory behind the propaganda of Global Warming / Climate Change. And that is the construction of one-world government. That entails, inter alia, how mankind should be organized, governed, their attitudes and behavior changed, in a massive reboot of all civilizations into a standardized civilization with standardized new religion, new habits, new lifestyles, with much of the planet earth off limits to the vast masses of humanity in the name of preserving nature, wildlife, environment, Gaia (mother earth), for future generations. Individual rights to be subsumed under community rights. Private property rights abolished for the public (not for the elite who hold property under corporations, tax-exempt foundations, non-governmental organizations called NGOs, etc.) Such a massive overhaul of mankind, a global transformation, cannot be brought about by peoples and nations simply agreeing to giving up their rights and national sovereignty. So it is to be accomplished by stealth, in baby-steps, disguised firstly in nice-sounding mantras easily palatable to the public mind. One of those nice sounding things is the “green” agenda called “Sustainable Development”. Secondly, the stealth is disguised as solutions to crises and menaces that people and governments would easily accept under conditions of psychological fear and physical terror. One of those menaces is Global Warming / Climate Change and its solution is Carbon Credit and Agenda 21. Similarly, another menace is terrorism, and its solution is global war on terror that enables instituting global standardized police-state polices. There are many more aspects to this and covers the whole gamut of human activity.

The Council on Foreign Relations

To understand the overarching big picture and why these methods are actually masks for a Machiavellian game plan, let's begin with the CFR, Council on Foreign Relations:

“In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.

Of course, for political as well as administrative reasons, some of these specialized arrangements should be brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the U.N. system, but the main thing is that the essential functions be performed.

The question is whether this more modest approach can do the job. Can it really bring mankind into the twenty-first century with reasonable prospects for peace, welfare and human dignity? The argument thus far suggests it better had, for there seems to be no alternative. But the evidence also suggests some grounds for cautious optimism.” --- Richard N. Gardner, The Hard Road to World Order, 1974, published in CFR's Foreign Affairs, http://thepowerhour.com/articles/HardRoadtoWorldOrder.pdf

So let's observe the the bottom up methods applied to build the ‘house of world order’ to bring mankind into the twenty-first century with reasonable prospects for peace, welfare and human dignity.

Report from Iron Mountain 1967

The environmental menace, and specifically climate change and pollution, is mentioned in this 1967 Report from Iron Mountain published by The Dial Press, as the alternate means of corralling human behavior based on fear in the absence of the menace of war corralling mankind. The report stated:

“The existence of an accepted external menace, then, is essential to social cohesiveness as well as to the acceptance of political authority. The menace must be believable, it must be of a magnitude consistent with the complexity of the society threatened, and it must appear, at least, to affect the entire society.”

If the overarching agenda is to form a one-world government, even if just for a moment the skeptic may entertain that hypothesis which is being openly pursued by the CFR (and of course the United States influential newspaper The Financial Times, read by virtually every business executive on earth worth his weight in gold, also explicitly laid the method out in December 2008), then, what better global menace than the environment which threatens the whole world! It is easily made believable, and especially if the ecological menace can be coincided with natural ecological / climate cycles due to sun's activity, and the requisite political as well as cultural propaganda employing credible “experts” is brought to bear on the principal cause being man-made. After fait accompli, it would be a moot point whether the menace was politically invented, or natural or man-made.

This is what the shockingly uncanny report, commissioned in 1961-62 at the height of the Cold War in the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis when it was already being anticipated by the powers that be that the Cold War would soon end with nary a new enemy in sight, stated in its Section 6, Substitutes for the Function of War, for new Political alternatives to war. The reader should be mindful that this study is well over a half century old. Whether real or fictionalized political treatise, it is uncannily in the footprints of Machiavelli's The Prince, the diabolical political blueprint for political authority to engineer consent from the public mind for their own behavior control by politically structured means:

“Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require "alternate enemies," some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.”

Note the coincidence of that last sentence with the emergence of the Global Warming mantra which was kicked off first in the intellectual space by the private elitist Club of Rome publishing their report in a book titled: The First Global Revolution in 1991; followed by major league governmental participation of virtually all nations of the world in what is called the United Nations Earth Summit in 1992; followed by vicariously kicking off public alarm in the mainstream by former vice president Al Gore in the 2000s making his Global Warming documentary. It was watched by millions in the mainstream worldwide and brought the public's fears on board the same page. Note that all these fall on precisely that timeline, “generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.” Newspapers, books, television shows, Hollywood movies, have continued to echo that menace in different flavors.

The entire diabolical subsection titled POLITICAL and a few shocking passages each from subsections titled SOCIOLOGICAL and ECOLOGICAL, of Section 6 of Report from Iron Mountain are reproduced below to lend full overarching context under which the latter day Global Warming / Climate Change menace, as well as many other menaces for behavior and population control which should easily be familiar today, are potentially being engineered to make the public mind. It is once again for the reader to make up his or her own damn mind whether the adverb “potentially” in that last sentence should be “actually”, or some other. Don't bow to any authority figures --- if you can help it. It is well for the reader to also remember what the Report on Iron Mountain itself stated at the very outset about the lay public mind “unexposed to the exigencies of higher political or military responsibility” not having the intellectual and moral capacity to appreciate this report (and this actually works to your advantage if you are not a sociopath and become filled with disgust reading it for it helps undo their propaganda system):

“Because of the unusual circumstances surrounding the establishment of this Group, and in view of the nature of its findings, we do not recommend that this Report be released for publication. It is our affirmative judgment that such action would not be in the public interest. The uncertain advantages of public discussion of our conclusions and recommendations are, in our opinion, greatly outweighed by the clear and predictable danger of a crisis in public confidence which untimely publication of this Report might be expected to provoke. The likelihood that a lay reader, unexposed to the exigencies of higher political or military responsibility, will misconstrue the purpose of this project, and the intent of its participants, seems obvious. We urge that circulation of this Report be closely restricted to those whose responsibilities require that they be apprised of its contents.”

Begin Excerpt From Section 6, Report from Iron Mountain

POLITICAL

The war system makes the stable government of societies possible. It does this essentially by providing an external necessity for a society to accept political rule. In so doing, it establishes the basis for nationhood and the authority of government to control its constituents. What other institution or combination of programs might serve these functions in its place?

We have already pointed out that the end of the war means the end of national sovereignty, and thus the end of nationhood as we know it today. But this does not necessarily mean the end of nations in the administrative sense, and internal political power will remain essential to a stable society. The emerging "nations" of the peace epoch must continue to draw political authority from some source.

A number of proposals have been made governing the relations between nations after total disarmament; all are basically juridical in nature. They contemplate institutions more or less like a World Court, or a United Nations, but vested with real authority. They may or may not serve their ostensible post-military purpose of settling international disputes, but we need not discuss that here. None would offer effective external pressure on a peace-world nation to organize itself politically.

It might be argued that a well-armed international police force, operating under the authority of such a supranational "court," could well serve the function of external enemy. This, however, would constitute a military operation, like the inspection schemes mentioned, and, like them, would be inconsistent with the premise of an end to the war system. It is possible that a variant of the "Unarmed Forces" idea might be developed in such a way that its "constructive" (i.e., social welfare) activities could be combined with an economic "threat" of sufficient size and credibility to warrant political organization. Would this kind of threat also be contradictory to our basic premise?--that is, would it be inevitably military? Not necessarily, in our view, but we are skeptical of its capacity to evoke credibility. Also, the obvious destabilizing effect of any global social welfare surrogate on politically necessary class relationships would create an entirely new set of transition problems at least equal in magnitude.

Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a political substitute for war. This is where the space-race proposals, in many ways so well suited as economic substitutes for war, fall short. The most ambitious and unrealistic space project cannot of itself generate a believable external menace. It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the "last, best hope of peace," etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by "creatures" from other planets or from outer space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain "flying saucer" incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a "need" for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking.

Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require "alternate enemies," some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.

It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbably that a program of deliberate environ- mental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.

However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probably, in our judgement, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. For this reason, we believe further speculation about its putative nature ill-advised in this context. Since there is considerable doubt, in our minds, that any viable political surrogate can be devised, we are reluctant to compromise, by premature discussion, any possible option that may eventually lie open to our government.

SOCIOLOGICAL

Another possible surrogate for the control of potential enemies of society is the reintroduction, in some form consistent with modern technology and political processes, of slavery. Up to now, this has been suggested only in fiction, notably in the works of Wells, Huxley, Orwell, and others engaged in the imaginative anticipation of the sociology of the future. But the fantasies projected in Brave New World and 1984 have seemed less and less implausible over the years since their publication. The traditional association of slavery with ancient preindustrial cultures should not blind us to its adaptability to advanced forms of social organization, nor should its equally traditional incompatibility with Western moral and economic values. 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; the logical first step would be the adoption of some form of "universal" military service.

When it comes to postulating a credible substitute for war capable of directing human behavior patterns in behalf of social organization, few options suggest themselves. Like its political function, the motivational function of war requires the existence of a genuinely menacing social enemy. The principal difference is that for purposes of motivating basic allegiance, as distinct from accepting political authority, the "alternate enemy" must imply a more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction. It must justify the need for taking and paying a "blood price" in wide areas of human concern.

In this respect, the possible enemies noted earlier would be insufficient. One exception might be the environmental-pollution model, if the danger to society it posed was genuinely imminent. The fictive models would have to carry the weight of extraordinary conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actual sacrifice of life; the construction of an up-to-date mythological or religious structure for this purpose would present difficulties in our era, but must certainly be considered.

Games theorists have suggested, in other contexts, the development of "blood games" for the effective control of individual aggressive impulses. It is an ironic commentary on the current state of war and peace studies that it was left not to scientists but to the makers of a commercial film to develop a model for this notion, on the implausible level of popular melodrama, as a ritualized manhunt. More realistically, such a ritual might be socialized, in the manner of the Spanish Inquisition and the less formal witch trials of other periods, for purposes of "social purification," "state security," or other rationale both acceptable and credible to postwar societies. The feasibility of such an updated version of still another ancient institution, though doubtful, is considerably less fanciful than the wishful notion of many peace planners that a lasting condition of peace can be brought about without the most painstaking examination of every possible surrogate for the essential functions of war. What is involved here, in a sense, is the quest for William James' "moral equivalent of war."

It is also possible that the two functions considered under this heading may be jointly served, in the sense of establishing the antisocial, for whom a control institution is needed, as the "alternate enemy" needed to hold society together. The relentless and irreversible advance of unemployability at all levels of society, and the similar extension of generalized alienation from accepted values may make some such program necessary even as an adjunct to the war system. As before, we will not speculate on the specific forms this kind of program might take, except to note that there is again ample precedent, in the treatment meted out to disfavored, allegedly menacing, ethnic groups in certain societies during certain historical periods.

ECOLOGICAL

Considering the shortcomings of war as a mechanism of selective population control, it might appear that devising substitutes for this function should be comparatively simple. Schematically this is so, but the problem of timing the transition to a new ecological balancing device makes the feasibility of substitution less certain. ...

There is no question but that a universal requirement that procreation be limited to the products of artificial insemination would provide a fully adequate substitute control for population levels. Such a reproductive system would, of course, have the added advantage of being susceptible of direct eugenic management. Its predictable further development---conception and embryonic growth taking place wholly under laboratory conditions--would extend these controls to their logical conclusion. The ecological function of war under these circumstances would not only be superseded but surpassed in effectiveness.

The indicated intermediate step--total control of conception with a variant of the ubiquitous "pill," via water supplies or certain essential foodstuffs, offset by a controlled "antidote"---is already under development. There would appear to be no foreseeable need to revert to any of the outmoded practices referred to in the previous section (infanticide, etc.) as there might have been if the possibility of transition to peace had arisen two generations ago.

End Excerpt

Report by the Council of the Club of Rome - The First Global Revolution 1991

Directly upon the heels of the Machiavellian prescriptions laid out in the Report from Iron Mountain, came the infamous Club of Rome's actual recipe to propagandize the ecological global threat. In its carefully worded report on environment and habitat of Man on earth titled: The First Global Revolution, 1991, the Club of Rome authors, Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, made global warming and climate change the new hard menace to corral mankind towards the behavior and attitude change desired by the powers that be:

“The Common enemy of humanity is Man: In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.” --- Ch 5, The Vacuum, pg 75 (pg 86 / 184 in PDF: https://archive.org/stream/TheFirstGlobalRevolution#page/n85/mode/2up .

The United Nations Agenda 21 and Social Engineering Play Book 1992

Immediately upon the heels of the Club of Rome report, came the United Nations Agenda 21 in 1992. In the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, held in Brazil in June 1992, virtually all member countries of the UN signed on to this Agenda 21, including the United States of America. Its prime-mover was the 1991 Club of Rome recommendations that had identified all the menaces facing humanity including humanity itself, rectification of all of which suddenly became internationally endorsed global policies known as United Nations Agenda 21. It is an actual play by play rule book for attitude and behavior modification in a massive global reset and reboot that covers the gamut of present day organizational combines from international to national to districts to cities to local to neighborhood and community levels.

The United Nations Agenda 21 is intended to force mankind to make broad changes in its attitudes, behaviors, and lifestyles in accordance with the wishes of the powers that be. The macro social change is to be wrought, and is being brought about, in baby steps, legally, just as in the Global Warming / Climate Change scam, with the blunt force of hammer unto anvil by international treaties, global laws, and local statutes. And just as for international agreement on limiting carbon emissions under the magical “climate change” propaganda cover, United Nations Agenda 21 is cloaked in the magical propaganda word “sustainable”, as in Sustainable Development, in order to make it appear to be in the public's own best interest. Only nutters, fools, crazies and evil-doers would ever argue with “Sustainable Development”! And therefore, any dissent and public resistance to draconian and austerity measures in the name of “sustainable” is easily managed and dispensed with by labels such as kooks, crazies, mentally ill, and when all else fails, eco-terrorists with invitation to enjoy state hospitality centers.

The motivation for the scientific sounding mechanics of Global Warming / Climate Change “Problem” dogma employing crafty pseudo science under the stewardship of UN international body called The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC), established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to “provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts”, and subsequently endorsed by the UN General Assembly to make it legal, cannot be fully appreciated in isolation to the profound justification that it lends to its big brother “Solution” umbrella, the United Nations Agenda 21.

The broader picture of full spectrum global control of humanity and the planet easily emerges once Global Warming / Climate Change is seen as just one among the many enabling threat components of the overall perception control system, the “Problem” component. Virtually all of these “Problem” components are based on this and that threat, some real, some imagined, some fabricated to look real, but in every case exaggerated with propaganda machinery of the Mighty Wurlitzer, to lend justification to the madness of the “Solution” proposed for solving it. In this case, the singular pursuit of “green” under United Nations Agenda 21 which, in itself, is also just one among the many “Solution” means being pursued to complete the transformation of national sovereignty of nation states to Global Governance under one world government.

The powers that be pushing for Global Governance have employed several programs under the central institutions of the United Nations to accomplish this global transformation – just as the CFR author had openly stated in The Hard Road to World Order, 1974: “In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault. Of course, for political as well as administrative reasons, some of these specialized arrangements should be brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the U.N. system,”.

United Nations WHO institution for instance is legally chartered by international treaty to globally control and direct each nation's domestic response to WHO's unilateral declaration of Pandemic. Individual nation's right to adjudicate on the matter through one's own scientific minds, and to apply one's own national remedies, have been stripped away for all nations who have signed on to the WHO Convention. That is virtually all nations of the world; just like in the case of Agenda 21. WHO works hand in glove with the United States CDC and big-pharma to push global vaccination programs using manufactured and/or propagandized threats (as for instance the Swine Flu scare of 1976, 2009), just like the fictitious threat of WMD from Iraq in 2003 under the United Nations Security Council aegis which had led to the preplanned “solution” of invading that defenseless Muslim nation by the strongest military in the world. When sovereign nations can be invaded under cover of propaganda systems and legalisms enforced under the United Nations institutions in the name of protecting other nations, invading individual people's bodies, private lives, and lifestyles in the name of protecting other people hardly poses a moral dilemma. This should be self-evident just by observation that moral calculus plays no role in international relations, or in the pursuit of any political agenda, except as PR for rallying the public to the cause célèbre of the day.

This is the natural outcome of seeking global control with “military style objectivity” – the ubermensch's uber rationality for achieving any political objective by any means irrespective of its consequences to the lesser humanity. This is termed “amoral” --- devoid of the calculus of morality; the force majeure of power over its subjects from time immemorial. This topic of uber rationality that leads to justification for any agenda, any goal, any outcome, is explored further in the essay: Morality derived from the Intellect leads to Enslavement!. The dystopic consequences which naturally follow from uber rationality drawing upon “will to power”, can easily be gleaned in uber rationalist philosopher Bertrand Russell's “respectable” justification for one-world government in his book: Impact of Science on Society.

One cannot pretend that because a modicum of rational thinking is necessary for sensible human existence in order to rise above what appears to be man's natural proclivity for superstitions, that insane amounts of rationality wielded by uber sociopaths is insanely good for humanity. This rationality trap of uber self-interest which calculatingly removes empathy and the absoluteness of the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you have others do unto you; and don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you” from its calculus, as these principles do not serve the self-interest of power, is the bane of rationality.

To reject this rationality trap that is sprung upon mankind using dogmas of science and technology is in itself rational and an existential self-defence. Its blanket rejection neither constitutes an endorsement of irrationality nor belief in tooth-fairies. To accuse those who reject this rationality trap as being irrational is part of ensuring that Unspeakable remain unspoken. This is what's behind marginalizing those who do not accept the dogma of man-made Global Warming / Climate Change.

There is a systematic method to the apparent madness of these (often phantasmic) threats arising out of nowhere and the officialdom's heavy-handed response to them once the layers of green, white, and other humanitarian or security masks are peeled off. These responses almost always strip away individual freedom, engender more conformity to dogmas, more standardization in individual behavior as well as in global policy prescriptions, and more world government which looks more and more like global police state with unified draconian policies that span the gamut of human activity, from banking to breathing.

One only has to read their own hand writings spanning the gamut of political theory, from those expressed in fables to those couched in philosophical justifications, in order to fully comprehend the whole which, as any perceptive system analyst understands, is often masked by focus on individual components that appear (and at times made to appear) disconnected and unrelated to each other.

Important system and causal properties (cause and effect) of a complex system often remain hidden in the interconnection between components. To get at the whole understanding of the system, one has to be able to see all the forces that shape events; not just what's happening near to one. Specious and false arguments, clever misdirections and red herrings are cunningly prepared by uber minds to ensure that this understanding of the whole does not arise in the public mind; the Unspeakable remain unspoken. Those able to reconstitute the whole from the components are craftily dismissed by employing many sophisticated perception management techniques. Some of these techniques have been examined in Anatomy of Conspiracy Theory.

The public documents listed below outline the scope of United Nations Agenda 21 for “Sustainable Development”, of which the mantra of climate change is but one part, to secure the earth from the menace of man in the name of saving man from his own excesses. Just as the Club of Rome had stated: “All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

Agenda 21 is designed to corral all mankind in all nations of the world into a state of existence that the world's public would, of their own volition, never select for themselves. Therefore, the objectives of United Nations Agenda 21 are to be achieved by stealth, in incremental stages, in the pretext of solving this and that menace. The menace is manufactured, or exponentially amplified, with propaganda cover expositing full spectrum of deceit from clever half-truths to outright lies that most people without much thinking would immediately agree with. Such as “Sustainable Development”.

Who in their right mind would not like the word “sustainable” as the panacea for the global threats of rising pollution, rising population explosion, rising food shortages, rising water shortages, rising famine, increased aridity of land, increasing terrorism, frequent pandemics, fear of global warming causing rising sea levels and destroying coastal cities, then fear of global cooling freezing out agriculture and rain forests, etc. etc. etc. The powers that be are only constrained by the imagination of the Rand Corporation and other think-bodies such as the Rockefeller Foundation to come up with new threat scenarios and menaces from where the Rand expert group assembled at Iron Mountain had left off in 1962. The powers that be are also only constrained by the technological advancements of the Technetronic Era to actually tickle crisis by intervention, to exacerbate it at will, or to outright manufacture it. Geo-engineering is used for weather modification and is examined in the full report. Advanced nations have long held command over environmental modification techniques as a Weapon of War that can change weather patterns, cause flood or drought at will, prolong or shorten monsoon season, melt polar ice caps or winterize, change atmospheric charge, temperature, and pressure to generate storms or to mitigate them.

'The beginning of experimental weather modification is credited to the first forced precipitation of rain - "cloud seeding" - by Vincent Schaefer useing dry ice in 1946. The following year the same effect was demonstrated by Bernard Vonnegut using silver iodide crystals. ... “Army, Navy and Air Force are spending close to a million dollars a year on weather modification and their tremendous interest suggests that military applications extend far beyond visiting a few showers upon an enemy. It does not require a sharp mind to figure out that wartime storms might readily be infected with virulent bacteriological and radiological substances.” ... Orville also reported that the USSR “... had conducted numerous unpublicized but still detectable experiments apparently aimed at finding ways to speed melting of polar icecaps; and has even offered to join the United States in a project to turn the Arctic Ocean into a sort of warm water lake by melting the polar icecap.” ' (pgs. 4-5 WEATHER MODIFICATION)

The United States Air Force has a 1996 public document outlining “owning the weather” completely by 2025 as a Force Multiplier. The then United States Secretary of Defence, William S. Cohen, publicly stated his apprehension of “eco- type of terrorism” as the justification for the United States also pursuing the same capabilities. In his DoD News Briefing in 1997, William Cohen, responding to the question: “how prepared we are to deal with [threats]”, said: “There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.” Official documents uncovered show the British RAF caused the flood of 1952 in the Devon village of Lynmouth in England due to their cloud seeding experiments under Operation Cumulus. The British government had of course termed the disastrous flood which killed 35 people “the hand of God”, but, as the UK Guardian newspaper reported, 'new evidence from previously classified government files suggests that a team of international scientists working with the RAF was experimenting with artificial rainmaking in southern Britain in the same week and could possibly be implicated. “We flew straight through the top of the cloud, poured dry ice down into the cloud. We flew down to see if any rain came out of the cloud. And it did about 30 minutes later, and we all cheered.” ' (ibid.)

The list of public disclosures is endless. The bibliography on the admission of technetronic capability for modifying weather as weapon available to many nations (and of course to the “terrorists” just like their possessing WMD) is easily accessible. To what extent is this capability actually deployed as a weapon on any given instance of weather anomaly, of course only becomes known ex post facto, years later, and on which historians, newspaper columnists, and hungry scholars earn their keep (and some even their Ph.D.) as they proudly strut their new found discoveries of a past which cannot be changed. Shame that few learn from history to understand the present and to preempt the future while waiting for its receipts: “We are made wise not by the recollections of our past, but by the responsibility for our future.” This shortsightedness is deliberate and calculated – for it does not take great deal of intelligence to see that a pound of flesh is extracted for breaking the code of silence when it can make the most difference to the deeds of history's actors:

“We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” (New York Times, Oct. 17, 2004)

Today, based on the understanding from the rich bibliography on this subject, it also does not take a rocket scientist to see that the climate change menace potentially has many other covert man-made technetronic helpers besides the sun's natural activity, neither of which is accounted for in the propaganda spiel of man-made carbon emissions causing Global Warming in what appears to be a universal conspiracy of dunces that sees no evil, hears no evil, and speaks no evil.

Whenever the great political and intellectual leaders of mankind get together to sign global Accords on Climate Change, only man-made CO2 is put on the table and its rectification is signed off as the “green” solution. That's because the stealth agenda is to force a global transformation using any pretext, be it wholly propagandistic, or manufactured technetronically to lend credibility to the propaganda campaign. As the Report from Iron Mountain had perceptively suggested: “Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem” for any mind-game to succeed.

Unlike the sex prostitutes in every major city on earth who earn their honest keep selling their bodies without deceiving their customers about the nature of their services, the prostitutes of empire do so by wearing the garb of academic respectability, morality, piety, and concern for humanity, outright deceiving their customers. Jesus had just one word for such “moralists”. The Bible calls them hypocrites. The problem however is far more severe than mere hypocrisy. It is criminal. A war crime. For it is the ubiquitous war on the public mind which can only be waged credibly by way of deception.

The wolf must appear in sheep's clothing in order to guide its flock first to the constricted hen house and then to the slaughter house. And it must also convince those most in the position to understand its overarching game-plan, to pretend to not notice it.

It's a shell game from top to bottom and permeates science as much as it permeates political science.

The skeptical reader who has bought into the religion of Global Warming must surely realize by now that the “sustainable” project, by necessity, requires a “credible problem” and propaganda system to affect the draconian changes to public attitudes and behavior that are inimical to their interests. That's just self-evident. And what has been demonstrated here is that when the “credible problem” is difficult to confirm empirically by the scientific method (of making observations on actual data and making theoretical models to explain that empirical data which are subsequently used for making predictions which, if they come true then, as the outcome of the scientific method, are deemed to represent reality to the first order, but only to the extent that the models stay “falsifiable” by future discoveries and do not become “religion”) despite pseudo science making every effort in creating convoluted computer models to fabricate “credibility” from bogus data to synthesize a religion around their models, and given the evidence from the aforementioned Senate Minority Report which documents over 1000 scientists worldwide dissenting with the so called official IPCC “Consensus” on Global Warming, then, credibility can also be “tickled” into existence by covert technetronic helpers creating the right illusions.

The skeptical reader must also see how the propaganda machinery has now switched its pitch from “Global Warming” which could not be confirmed empirically despite the rise in CO2 levels, to extremes in weather fluctuations and relabeled that as “Climate Change” menace. And the skeptical reader cannot have failed to observe how the original first-cause prime-mover is cleverly retained for this new menace as well: due to man-made CO2 emissions – the core belief to be implanted among the global public as that is also the first-cause axiom of United Nations Agenda 21. This core belief is not permitted to be challenged without being labeled a heretic, kook, and incurring the risk of losing or tarnishing one's respectable career. This is why Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever, quoted above, stated: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”

It bears looking a bit more closely at this one Physics Nobel Laureate scientist's views who, in his 80s, appears quite unafraid of losing “academic respectability”. In his statement in response to the policy declaration of APS (American Physical Society): “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”, Giaever told The Sunday Telegraph in 2011: “Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.” The newspaper reported that Giaever had testified before the US Senate about his doubts on Global Warming: “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important.” Ivar Giaever revisited his reasons and analysis for resigning from APS in The Lindau Nobel laureate Meetings in 2015. In his presentation titled Global Warming Revisited (video), Giaever stated:

“I resigned from the society in 2011. First: nothing in science is incontrovertible. Second: the “measured” average temperature increase in 100 years or so, is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim it has become warmer, why is everything better than before? Forth: the maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago. When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?”

“From ~1880 to 2015 temperature has increased from ~288 K to 288.8 K (0.3%), i.e., amazingly stable.”

“In Albany, New York, where I live, there is ~80 K between max and min temperature. Do you believe 0.8 K degree makes a big difference?”

“To my surprise both 'alarmist' and 'deniers' accept the fact that you can measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year to a fraction of a degree and that the result is significant. Of course it's not. How can you possibly measure the average temperature for the whole earth and for the whole year and come up with a fraction of a degree?”

“I think the average temperature of the earth is equal to the emperor's new clothes. Was a boy who cried out that the emperor has no clothes on. And I would cry out and say you can't measure the temperature for the whole earth with such accuracy. ... It is ridiculous.”

“Now this is what they have come up with however, and this is for the last 19 years, roughly speaking. The temperature has not gone up. It's been constant for 19 years. There was a big peak in 1998, that's very recognizable. (Graph-1 RSS global mean temperature change: 219 months October 1996 to December 2014 – No Global Warming for 18 years 3 months). So what do the people who measure temperature do with that?

Well, here is the latest temperature they have measured now (Graph-2 Global Land–Ocean Temperature Index). And you look at the curve here and the temperature goes up.

How can that be when I just showed you the other curve (Graph-1) where the temperature has been constant? Well the reason for that is that they include now the Ocean. But for a hundred years the ocean has not been included.

Why do you think they include the ocean? Because it's more accurate? Or because they can fiddle with the data. That's what NASA does.

So Obama said last year that 2014 was the hottest year ever. But it's not true. It's not the hottest year.

Here is some satellite data (Graph-3 UAH Satellite-Based Temperature of the Global Lower Atmosphere). This is the peak in 1998, and basically the satellite data shows the same thing. The temperature has not increased.”

“From 1898 – 1998 (the hottest year) temperature has increased ~0.8 degrees and the CO2 concentration increased from 295 ppm to 367 ppm i.e. 72 ppm in a hundred years. That's a fact.

Now from 1998, which is basically the hottest year, CO2 has increased from 367 ppm to 403 ppm, i.e., 36 ppm or half of the previous 100 years while temperature has been stable. So why hasn't the temperature increased 0.4 degrees then?

I mean if you are a physicist for heaven's sake, and here is the experiment, and you have a theory, and the theory doesn't agree with the experiment, then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory. So you can't believe then the people who are the alarmist that CO2 is a terrible thing. And therefore you can't drive and use solar cells and stuff because otherwise the world will go to pot. But it's not true. It's absolutely not true.”

“Global warming has really become a new religion. Because you can't discuss it. It's not proper. If you look at Lindau here today, then all the notable people they have said Climate Change in their talks. All of them have said it. I don't know whether they know what they mean, but they have said it anyway. Everybody talks about climate change. The American Physical Society of which I was a member, said the evidence is incontrovertible that Global Warming exists. Now think about that. It is s a physical society. And they say you cannot discuss global warming because we believe it's happening. It's like the Catholic Church. There are lots of incontrovertible truths in the Catholic Church I am sure. And here there is a incontrovertible truth in a physical society. ”

There is a clearly visible pattern of narrative control here. Why control the narrative? Because it is a principal axiom of psychological warfare. No propaganda system can be successful without control of the narrative. When important people and authority figures continually repeat the same Big lie over and over again, it not only becomes a Big truth for the contemporary public, but also a Big fact for subsequent generations once institutional pied pipers, namely scholars, historians, journalists, scientists and academics start exercising their pens in “respectability”. Within no time a Big lie is turned into a Big fact with the control of the narrative.

The world witnessed something similar on 9-11 when shocking Terror was “tickled” into existence with full spectrum propaganda cover to make the Global War on Terror credible to the public mind against that external enemy over there, the “Islamist terrorists” – the new religion of empire. Sophisticated computer models were constructed not just by scientists, but also respectable scientific institutions like NIST, to show how the WTC buildings, terrorized by those “Islamist terrorists” flying over to the sacred land of the free from the Hindu Kush mountains on America's finest jet liners, could collapse so catastrophically due to jet-fuel induced fire which supposedly weakened the building structures which subsequently initiated their so called gravity collapse. While the observable truth was (and still is) right before everyone's eyes – steel-concrete tall buildings have never imploded into its own footsteps (WTC-7) / and exploded into fine dust (WTC-1 WTC-2) that way, especially not due to any fire in the history of fires in tall buildings, except under the deliberate force of some kind of controlled demolition that brings them down at free-fall speed as was observed on 9-11. Great propaganda cover was lent to these so called “scientific studies” for the benefit of the skeptics. Fortunately for those with eyes to see, that also helped “out” all the great “moral” public intellectuals who cunningly shepherded the disbelieving flock to the same core beliefs as the wolves wanted; same applies to foisting “sustainable” agenda upon the disbelieving mind.

The core belief has to be universally implanted in the public mind that it is man that is responsible for Climate Change. It can only escape the notice of a complete dunce head (and there is no shortage of useful idiots in the world) that how earlier the religious dogma was “Global Warming”, then it became weather extremes because honest scientists demonstrated the former to be outright bunk, and it is soon to become “Global Cooling” (if it hasn't already) as the global temperatures are actually measured to be slightly declining (as some argue) and snow cover on the mountains and glaciers increasing.

The United Nations Agenda 21 continues on the same principal axis as the global warming scam. It posits man's very existence on the face of the earth to be a dire threat to “Gaia's” natural processes even beyond his carbon emissions. The principle is directly taken from the aforementioned handbook of social control in which the Club of Rome authors hath stated (repeating for emphasis): “All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.” The solution to this enemy is United Nations Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development!

This Hegelian Dialectic is far more sophisticated (and convoluted) than others that have come before it within our own lifetimes and requires considerable acuity of mind to comprehend. An acuity which is enfeebled by dumbing down the public mind and occupying it between bread and circuses. See the Report on Mighty Wurlitzer to understand how that is most cunningly accomplished through perception control. See Hegelian Dialectic for Dummies for understanding that mechanism.

The core propaganda spiel of Agenda 21 is premised upon the necessity of preserving earth's natural processes from man's incessant encroachment, unbridled harvesting, and unbridled despoiling, through his attitude and behavior change under “sustainable” living. The “Gaia”, or mother earth, is deemed supreme, and Man, the common man that is, is deemed not just one among its many inhabitants, but also the worst one, and therefore, he must be treated like game in a reservation; he must be guided, shepherded, profiled, controlled, and culled. All this sounds grotesque and far-fetched, but that is indeed the underlying premise of the tiny elite who want to own and rule the earth in one-world government.

It is shocking to see etched in 18 feet tall granite stone monument in Elbert County, Georgia, USA, called the Georgia Guidestones, these new Ten Commandments for a new world order, written in English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, and Russian, that world population should be maintained at half a billion (today it is seven billion --- where are the other 6.5 billion and rising to go? Who lives and who dies who decides? UN Agenda 21!)

Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
Unite humanity with a living new language.
Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
Balance personal rights with social duties.
Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

Under the propaganda cover of “Sustainable Development”, vast public spaces on earth are to be legally declared off-limits to man. The habitable as well as previously inhabited lands, water sources, and open spaces, are to be legally classified as public parks, natural preserves. Right alongside the drive for the outright abolition of private property ownership by individuals. All space is only to be leased for limited time and designated use from state authority and their proxies, the so called NGOs and non-profit tax-exempt foundations that are to take charge of the new world's public commons. Only corporations and non-profit foundations will be able to own land as the supposed custodians of public property as producers. Most of the world's open spaces is already being put under these umbrella organizations ostensibly in public interest. One of them is the famous international organization World Wildlife Fund or Federation (WWF).

In the developed West, beginning with the United States, the number and size of no-go, no-grow, no-farm, no-cultivate, and no-live spaces for individuals and communities is rising rapidly, right alongside geographically marked urbanized hi-rise clustering where most of humanity is eventually to be made to live in controlled spaces with strict control over their movements. That is already possible with electronic credit and electronic identity cards – which can be programmed to only work (when the person is behaving acceptably that is) in certain geographic areas or at certain times of the day. Thus human cloistering in regulated areas or “reservations” becomes the natural outcome of rapid technologization of human life in the Technetronic Era. Hollywood has been continually priming us psychologically with various dystopic outcomes for decades now. Few are surprised today let alone resist that millions of people go through x-ray body scanners daily as the new normal. More dystopia is introduced vicariously through movies, television, novels, fables, easier it becomes to accept it. The fact that a Hunger Games like society may well emerge as the peak of Technetronic Era, it is being banked, will just as easily be accepted by the public as body scanners.

Combined with carbon-credit and its repercussions of what man may legally eat, grow, produce, and if and how many he may procreate, under the overarching United Nations Agenda 21, where man may legally live, how much space he may legally occupy, and where and when he may legally travel, all under full surveillance, is intended to make a global prison state for hoi polloi. Fable and reality are merging rapidly. Or at least being enabled.

It all started with the bogus alarm of man-made global warming, moved to the nice sounding idea of sustainable development, and is intended to end up in dystopic one-world police-state.

Conclusion

This is the real alarm. The real man-made elitist menace which needs global public's interdiction. Not Global Warming / Climate Change which, if indeed real, is a natural phenomenon. Planetary scientists need to study it as such without special interests dominating their funding or their own narrow self-interests co-opting both their science and their moral acumen.

To learn more about UN Agenda 21, here are some documents and video presentations.