Global warming is a theory with four components: (1) The Earth’s surface temperature is rising because of human activity, particularly industrial production and personal consumption; (2) Weather extremes we now experience are more destructive than in the past because of this warming effect; (3) If this trend is not stopped, the planet will soon be unable to sustain human life as we have known it; and (4) The solution is government management of all human activity, including the elimination of private property and personal freedom. The theory is based on junk science and fraud. In other words, it does not exist. The driving force behind this theory comes from politicians, bureaucrats, and those employed by institutions that depend on government funding. All of these benefit from the alleged solution to the alleged problem. The proposed solution requires crushing taxation, confiscation of private property, and denial of freedom-of-choice. The threat of global warming is the bedrock foundation of almost all programs on behalf of totalitarian government based on collectivism.
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a theory that suggests that human activity is causing the Earth to warm. The theory posits that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor, trap solar warmth on the planet. Globalists use this theory as a basis to propose cuts in energy production and consumption, a global UN tax on every person, and to promote de-industrialization.
The Beginning of the Hoax
The Club of Rome is a global think tank that develops strategies meant to influence the world’s most powerful elites. They represent the intellectual avant-garde of globalist thinking and have developed much of the geopolitical doctrine shaping our world today. The end of the first half of a report written in 1991, by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, for the Club of Rome, titled: “The First Global Revolution” concludes:
In searching for the new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for cause. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changing attitudes and behaviors that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Before the Club of Rome think tank was another think tank that was likely commissioned by the Department of Defense under Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara and was produced by the Hudson Institute located at the base of Iron Mountain in Croton-on-Hudson, New York. G. Edward Griffin devoted a section of his popular book, The Creature From Jekkyl Island, regarding the report named ‘The Report from Iron Mountain‘. “It is clear from the start that the nature of the study was to analyze the different ways a government can perpetuate itself in power.
The major conclusion of the report was that, in the past, war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal. It contends that only during times of war or the threat of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint. Fear of conquest and pillage by an enemy can make almost any burden seem acceptable by comparison. War can be used to arouse human passion and patriotic feelings of loyalty to the nation’s leaders. No amount of sacrifice in the name of victory will be rejected. Resistance is viewed as treason. But, in times of peace, people become resentful of high taxes, shortages, and bureaucratic intervention. When they become disrespectful of their leaders, they become dangerous. No government has long survived without enemies and armed conflict. War, therefore, has been an indispensable condition for “stabilizing society.” These are the report’s exact words:
The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its “legitimacy,” or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, of reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer…. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has insured the subordination of the citizens to the state by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood. (2)
The report then explains that we are approaching a point in history where the old formulas may no longer work. Why? 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 will be called peace. The report says: “The word peace, as we have used it in the following pages, … implies total and general disarmament.” (3)
Under that scenario, independent nations will no longer exist and governments will not have the capability to wage war. There could be military action by the world army against renegade political subdivisions, but these would be called peace-keeping operations, and soldiers would be called peace keepers. No matter how much property is destroyed or how much blood is spilled, the bullets will be “peaceful” bullets and the bombs – even atomic bombs, if necessary – will be “peaceful” bombs.
The report then raises the question of whether there can ever be a suitable substitute for war. What else could the regional governments use – and what could the world government itself use – to legitimize and perpetuate itself? To provide an answer to that question was the stated purpose of the study.
The Report from Iron Mountain concludes that there can be no substitute for war unless it possesses three properties. It must (1) be economically wasteful, (2) represent a credible threat of great magnitude, and (3) provide a logical excuse for compulsory service to the government.
On the subject of compulsory service, the Report explains that one of the advantages of standing armies is that they provide a place for the government to put antisocial and dissident elements of society. In the absence of war, these forced-labor battalions would be told they are fighting poverty or cleaning up the planet or bolstering the economy or serving the common good in some other fashion. Every teenager would be required to serve – especially during those years in which young people are most rebellious against authority. Older people, too, would be drafted as a means of working off tax payments and fines. Dissidents would face heavy fines for “hate crimes” and politically incorrect attitudes so, eventually, they would all be in the forced-labor battalions.
The first consideration in finding a suitable threat to serve as a global enemy was that it did not have to be real. A real one would be better, of course, but an invented one would work just as well, provided the masses could be convinced it was real. The public will more readily believe some fictions than others. Credibility would be more important than truth.
Poverty was examined as a potential global enemy but rejected as not fearful enough. Most of the world was already in poverty. Only those who had never experienced poverty would see it as a global threat. For the rest, it was simply a fact of everyday life. An [lightbox full=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwubPWt_lrE”]invasion by aliens from outer space[/lightbox] was given serious consideration. The report said that experiments along those lines already may have been tried. Public reaction, however, was not sufficiently predictable, because the threat was not “credible.” Obviously, they have decided to prepare and build it up as a backup plan or to test it as can be ascertained from the warnings of Dr. Steven Greer.
The final candidate for a useful global threat was pollution of the environment. This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution– in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, be credible. Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare. Accuracy in these predictions would not be important. Their purpose would be to frighten, not to inform. It might even be necessary to deliberately poison the environment to make the predictions more convincing and to focus the public mind on fighting a new enemy, more fearful than any invader from another nation – or even from outer space. The masses would more willingly accept a falling standard of living, tax increases, and bureaucratic intervention in their lives as simply “the price we must pay to save Mother Earth.” A massive battle against death and destruction from global pollution possibly could replace war as justification for social control.
End-of-world scenarios based on phony scientific studies – or no studies at all – are uncritically publicized by the CFR controlled media; radical environmental groups advocating collectivist doctrine and anti-business programs are lavishly funded by CFR dominated foundations, banks, and corporations, the very groups that would appear to have the most to lose. The Report from Iron Mountain answers those questions. Obviously, global warming has taken the forefront as the biggest global environmental threat to mankind, although no proof can be made of the hoax. Pollution has also been heavily propagandized and is also being used, although a real concern, as a means of advancing their agenda. The War on Terror, born on 9/11 has been the biggest cause of fear throughout the world although it can be shown to also be a creation of the deep state.
As the Report pointed out, truth is not important in these matters. It’s what people can be made to believe that counts. “Credibility” is the key, not reality. All that is required is media cooperation and repetition. The plan has apparently worked. People of the industrialized nations have been subjected to a barrage of documentaries, dramas, feature films, ballads, poems, bumper stickers, posters, marches, speeches, seminars, conferences, and concerts. The result has been phenomenal. Politicians are now elected to office on platforms consisting of nothing more than an expressed concern for the environment and a promise to combat the threat of global warming. Not one in a thousand will question that underlying premise. How could it be false? Look at all the movie celebrities and rock stars who have joined the movement.
The Club of Rome’s propaganda man and main proponent Of global warming, Maurice Strong said the following on global warming:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“
Like Dorothy, Lion, Tin Man and Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, we’ve all been dancing down the Yellow Brick Road of “settled science” in search of answers from the Emerald City, only to find that what we suspected all along — the Wizard has been telling us fibs. But who exactly is the Wizard? And where did this seeming-madness all begin? Undoubtedly there are many “wizards”, but the man behind the green curtain, the man who managed to get the climate industry to where it is today is a mild mannered character by the name of Maurice Strong. The whole climate change business, and it is a business, started with Mr Strong.
Maurice Strong, a self-confessed socialist, was the man who put the United Nations into the environmental business, being the shadowy-figure behind the UN secretaries general from U Thant to Kofi Annan. His reign of influence in world affairs lasted from 1962 to 2005. Strong has been variously called “the international man of mystery”, the “new guy in your future” and “a very dangerous ideologue”.
Strong made his fortune in the oil and energy business running companies such as Petro Canada, Power Corporation, CalTex Africa, Hydro Canada, the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, Ajax Petroleum, Canadian Industrial Oil and Gas— to name just a few.His private interests always seemed to be in conflict with his public persona and his work on the world stage. Strong’s extensive range of contacts within the power brokers of the world was exceptional. One admirer christened him “the Michelangelo of networking”.
In 1972 he organized for U Thant the first Earth Summit, The Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. This led to the formation of UN Environment Program with Maurice Strong at its head. Later, as the UNEP boss he organized the first international expert group meeting on climate change.
This led to exotic UN sponsored organizations such at Earth Council and Earth Charter, The World Resources Institute, the World Wildlife Fund and later The Commission for World Governance and the UN’s University for Peace. Strong was the driving force behind the idea of world governance by the United Nations when he dreamt up a world tax on monetary transactions of 0.5% which would have given the UN an annual income of $1.5 trillion. About equal then to the income of the USA. The stumbling block was the Security Council, and their power of veto. He devised a plan to get rid of the Security Council but failed to get it implemented. Then came along the idea that global warming might just be the device to get his World Governance proposal up and running.
In 1989 Maurice Strong was appointed Secretary General of the Earth Summit and in 1992, addressing Earth Summit II in Rio, he told the thousands of climate change delegates:
It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class— involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.
There goes the Sunday roast, a house to live in, the car, the occasional hamburger and generally, life on earth as we know it. But what Strong didn’t tell the delegates was that he was involved in the purchase of the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, which he bought from Adnan Khashoggi, an arms dealer who had strong connections with the Bin Laden family.
This 200,000 acre cattle property, called the Baca had two hidden secrets. One was that it sat above vast underground water systems, which Strong wanted to remove. He formed the American Water Development Corporation to exploit the water by pumping it out for commercial intent but was stopped by the locals as they feared it would destroy the delicate environment.
The second secret was that Maurice Strong had been told by a mystic that:
The Baca would become the centre for a new planetary order which would evolve from the economic collapse and environmental catastrophes that would sweep the globe in the years to come.
As a result of these revelations Strong created the Manitou Foundation, a New Age institution located at the Baca ranch — above the sacred waters that Strong had been denied permission to pump out. This hocus-pocus continued with the foundation of The Conservation Fund (with financial help of Laurance Rockefeller) to study the mystical properties of the Manitou Mountain. At the Baca ranch there is a circular temple devoted to the world’s mystical and religious movements.
The valley in which the Baca establishment is located is also traditional home for various Navajo tribes. They believe that their ancestors were led underground here by “Ant People” and according to Navajo tradition they were warned of a coming cataclysm by “sky katchinas” (sky spirits). No wonder Strong wanted to buy the Baca.
Meanwhile Maurice was also busy founding the Earth Council Institute in 1992 and recruiting world luminaries such as Mikhail Gorbachev, Shimon Peres, Al Gore and David Rockefeller. In 2000 Earth Charter was formed as a further push by Strong to create a world governing body.
Unfortunately, in 2005, the most powerful man in the push to save of humanity — by steady promotion of the theory of human induced greenhouse gases — was caught with his hand in the till.
Investigations into the UN’s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong — issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to China where he has been living ever since.
Strong is believed to have sanctuary in China because of his cousin, Anne Louise Strong, a Marxist who lived with Mao Tse Tung for two years, and when she died in 1970, her funeral was arranged by Premier Chou En-Lai. Anne Louise Strong was a Comintern member — an organization formed in 1919 as the Third International, with one of its aims to use “by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie…”
Maurice Strong, as an 18-year-old Canadian from Manitoba, started work at the United Nations in 1947 as a junior officer in the UN Security Section, living with the UN Treasurer, Noah Monod. Following his exposure for bribery and corruption in the UN’s Oil-for-Food scandal Maurice Strong was stripped of many of his 53 international awards and honors he had collected during his lifetime working in dual role of arch conservationist and ruthless businessman. The exposure and downfall of climate change’s most powerful wizard? Dorothy and Toto would have loved it! (Source)
On November 19, 2009, a scandal labeled ‘Climategate‘ erupted when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory. The scandal that the suffix –gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade, revealed by more than a thousand emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists. The released information is evidence of deceit by climate scientists, which was kept a secret or hidden from the public until the data was leaked from the CRU. The CRU’s apparent obstruction of freedom-of-information requests, as revealed by the leaks, was only the tip of the iceberg. Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific hoax in world history as the worst scandal of this generation.
The Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers worldwide, including NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did. NASA’s two primary climate centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C., and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University in New York City, “systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations.”
The CRU scientists, from the Climategate emails, on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. As scientific data began showing a downtrend after 2001, the Climategate emails show a criminal intent to create fraudulent data, and defraud the public of massive amounts of money with a cap and trade scheme as part of a Global Warming movement. Climate scientists at the CRU worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act process in the UK. The Freedom of Information Act explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a FOIA request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable university.
Iain Murray at Pajamas Media pointed out three takeaways that people must know about Climategate.
- First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades.
- Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, complained that paleoclimatologist Hans von Storch was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” (1051190249) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned).
- Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.
Sustainable Development & Agenda 21
Sustainable development has been the catchphrase of the environmental movement for over 20 years and rarely are underlying motives questioned. After all, a majority of people want a healthy future, free of pollutants and global warming where the earth is protected for ourselves and subsequent generations. There is a catch, however. The underpinnings of sustainable development are rooted in Agenda 21, a body of regulations inspired by the United Nations “Earth Summit” conference in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. At first glance, the agenda looks beneficial and harmless — except for the fact that it sets forth a policy which strips individuals of freedom and controls private land unconstitutionally.
The number one issue identified at the meeting of globalists was that of global warming, or climate change as it is now referred to as colder temperature trends have squashed the warming hoax.
The scientific establishment use great energy to attack any scientist who does dare ask questions or finds data contrary to the “official” line. The U.S. Justice Department even considered legal action against climate “deniers.” Why is it so vitally important that they continue to promote something that clearly is, to say the least, questionable? It’s because all of Agenda 21 policy is built on the premise that man is destroying the Earth. Climate change is their “proof.” To eliminate that premise is to remove all credibility and purpose for their entire agenda. They are willing to go to any length, even lies, to keep the climate-change foot on our throats.
On the local level, this translates into planning policy that controls energy use and the efforts to cut down on the use of cars, enforcement of the building of expensive light rail train systems, and bike paths and installation of smart meters, etc.
But don’t take my word for it. I’ll let them speak for themselves:
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” — Christine Stewart, former Canadian minister of the environment
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” — Timothy Wirth, president, UN Foundation
“It doesn’t matter what is true. It only matters what people believe is true.” — Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.
Follow the money
Most truth seekers are familiar with the fact that an unfathomably wealthy banking and oil dynasty has been hijacking governments, media organs, universities, non-profits, and other power centers. Would anyone be surprised to find that the same culprits seek to expand its control over the economy and the energy sector in particular, according to a recently released investigation by a watchdog group? That dynasty, of course, is the Rockefeller family. In essence, they have largely created, bankrolled, and weaponized what is known as the “green” movement “as a means to expand their empire over the past three decades,” the report found.
Under the guise of fighting alleged “man-made global-warming,” the Rockefeller family and its billions have been bankrolling everything from “climate” journalism propaganda efforts, politicians, and “academia” to politically motivated “investigations” of energy companies and non-profit organizations by government officials. Billionaire extremist George Soros also helped fund the efforts, according to the report by the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) entitled The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert “Climate Change” Plan.
Continued on next page…