Archive for Climategate

Patrick J. Michaels on Climate Change and Global Warming

Posted in climate change, Climategate, Environment with tags , , , , , , on December 22, 2009 by saynsumthn

Cato Institute Senior Fellow Patrick J. Michaels discusses climate change on various television programs. Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society

John Holdren “tax the bads …we’re trying to reduce” Could Children be next?

Posted in Abortion, birth control in water, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Civil Rights, climate change, Climategate, Copenhagen, Eugenics, Holdren, Maafa21, New World Order, Obama, Planned Parenthood, Socialism, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Uncategorized, United Nations with tags , , , , , , on December 15, 2009 by saynsumthn

In 2002 – John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar said this in an interview with Living On Earth:

“We need to accept the principle that it is better to tax bads, things that we’re trying to reduce, and correspondingly, lower the taxes on good things, things we’d like to encourage, like income and capital investment. And in that way, changing the incentive system that’s out there, we would start to move the society off the “business as usual” trajectory, in the direction that would reduce the disruption of climate with which we’re going to have to deal.”

With the recent Copenhagen push for Population Control and the embraceable of China’s One Child Policy – could Holdren have predicted the increase of taxing children?

READ THIS FOR MORE DETAILS Inconvenient Eugenicist, forced abortions and population control pushed in Copenhagen

In the 1970’s Holdren published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Although Holdren may not have absolutely stated that he wanted to add sterilizing agents to the nation’s water supplies to keep the population down, he did say that if the population did not “voluntarily” decrease, this could be one option. And Holdren should know, because he was on panels and in touch with high level government officials, birth control pushers, pro-abortion enthusiasts, and Zero Population Growth experts who were, in fact, espousing this type of coercion.

Holdren stated officially that one of his mentors was a Professor he had by the name of Paul Harrison.

Harrison suggested that infanticide was a legitimate form of population control when he wrote this in his book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, from page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past.

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published a book entitled, No Growth Society,

Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…

In an article entitled: The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects: by Holdren, Ehrlich and Gretchen C. Daily

It appears that Holdren and his company are suggesting that you can sacrifice some humans to save the “environment” ”

From the Footnotes: 7. Harm that would qualify as tolerable, in this context, could not be cumulative, else continuing additions to it would necessarily add up to unsustainable damage eventually. Thus, for example, a form and level of pollution that subtract a month from the life expectancy of the average member of the human population, or that reduce the net primary productivity of forests on the planet by 1 percent, might be deemed tolerable in exchange for very large benefits and would certainly be sustainable as long as the loss of life expectancy or reduction in productivity did not grow with time. Two of us have coined the term “maximum sustainable abuse” in the course of grappling with such ideas (Daily and Ehrlich 1992).

This is no surprise to me and I fully expect that in the push to save “Mother Earth” all “Human Mothers” will be vilified ! Population Control, Eugenics, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, all run together and all seem to attract the same type of people.


Many people are not aware of the fact that State GOVERNMENTS within the United States openly supported Eugenics. In fact, as early as 1907 Indiana had established the first GOVERNMENT “eugenics court” and the last GOVERNMENT Eugenics court was not closed until 1984, that was in Oregon. These Eugenics Courts, were GOVERNMENT Boards and they required the poor, the infirmed, “feebleminded” and minorities, which, included a large population of black people to appear before them to decide who could and could not pro-create. Remember, Eugenics Boards and GOVERNMENT Boards – were one in the same. Many of these underrepresented people groups were forcibly sterilized and coerced into birth control clinics in order to keep their GOVERNMENT welfare! Recently a well-documented film, called, Maafa21, produced by Life Dynamics in Denton, Texas, has exposed much of this abuse. You can get a copy here: You can also google Eugenics in North Carolina, and read the GOVERNMENT documents which that state has opened up and get just a sneak peak of what a run-away GOVERNMENT board with this kind of power can do to people.

Preview of Maafa21:

One other important fact you may not be aware of is the history of the founding of the first group who fought for the legalization of Euthanasia. Most people are not aware that many of the exact same people who originally founded the idea of legalized euthanasia in the US, were the same ones who were on the Board of Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL). To examine this closer – all you have to do is get a copy of the New York Times from January 17,1938.

In 1938, just a few years prior to the American Birth Control League (ABCL) changing it’s name to Planned Parenthood, which today is the largest abortion provider in the nation, a group of American Eugenics Society Members and Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL) members got together and formed the National Society for the Legalization of Euthanasia. Heading this pro-euthanasia panel was a man by the name of Charles F. Potter who, in 1938 was also on the ABCL Committee for Planned Parenthood according to a February 1938, New York Times story. Potter was the leader of the First Humanist Society and organized this entire pro-euthanasia group.

Also on this pro-euthanasia board was: Sidney Goldstein who sat on the American Birth Control League’s National Council and later was on Planned Parenthood’s Board of Directors. Another member was Frank H. Hankins who was a managing editor for Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger’s newsletter called the Birth Control Review. Hankins was also an American Eugenics Society member. Another more famous name who was sat on the advisory board of this pro-euthanasia panel, was Julian Huxley, who was a later recipient of a Planned Parenthood award.

Mrs. F. Robertson Jones was also on this panel, she was an ABCL President, wrote for Sanger’s Birth Control Review , was an honorary board member of Planned Parenthood-World Population and a Board of Director of Planned Parenthood. ABCL Citizen’s Committee for Planned Parenthood member, Dr. Foster Kennedy, was also on the pro-euthanasia panel. American Eugenics Society Member, Clarence Cook Little, who was the President of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), at the same time he was on this pro-euthanasia panel. American Eugenics Society founder and friend to Margaret Sanger, Leon Whitney, also sat on this panel. Whitney advocated forced sterilization, was published in Sanger’s Birth Control Review, and openly praised Adolf Hitler for his Nazi effort. Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger was not on this panel, but she was a member of the American Eugenics Society and many of their members were on this panel. Sanger admitted that she gave a speech to the Klu Klu Klan and in her autobiography , she bragged that she received a dozen invites from the Klan for further speeches. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest Population Control and some would say “Eugenics Control” organization and they receive millions of dollars from the US GOVERNMENT. Care to ask why????

It is important to know this because the “population Control” , “Zero Population Growth”, “Planned Parenthood” crowds are buzzing around this administration and have been heavily involved in government decision making for years. In fact, Sanger’s Planned Parenthood organization receives over $1 million dollars a day from the Government to sterilize and abort this so-called over-populated society. Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute , reports that Black Minorities receive 5 abortions to every 1 white baby aborted in this nation. Is this coincidence or a form of racist and eugenic targeting? ( Special Note: Alan Guttmacher was a Planned Parenthood President and was also a Vice President of the American Eugenics Society. ) Remember that when they removed the GOVERNMENT Eugenics Courts, they appear to have replaced them with Federal Funding of Population Control Groups, like Planned Parenthood.

Do you really believe that if we can form GOVERNMENT Eugenics Boards which forcibly sterilized thousand of Americans, murder 50 million unborn children through abortion with the blessing and funding of the GOVERNMENT to the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, and form euthanasia panels to legalize the act, that we would never have GOVERNMENT death panels? Then…think again !

PS – Holdren wasn’t the first to advocate adding sterilizing agents to the food and water supplies: Watch this clip from Maafa21

More: Fewer Kids, More Abortions, Better Environment

Also View: Robert Reich: Honest about Death Panels? “If you are very old – we’re gonna let you die !”

Elaine Riddick- Forcefully sterilized at the age of 14, full interview from the film: Maafa21:

America’s State of the Climate June 19,2009

Living in Earth – Interview with Obama Science Czar: John Holdren

CURWOOD: From the Jennifer and Ted Stanley studios in Somerville, Massachusetts, this is Living on Earth. I’m Steve Curwood.

YOUNG: And I’m Jeff Young.

Back in 2007 it took a court order to get the Bush administration to follow a congressional mandate and issue a comprehensive report about climate change. But the Obama administration has embraced the opportunity enthusiastically.

Its 192-page report is called “The Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.” It’s heavy on the science, but it lays out the challenges in dramatic, accessible language.

Thirteen government agencies collaborated on the effort, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is headed by Jane Lubchenco.

LUBCHENKO: First and foremost, human induced climate change is a reality not only in remote polar regions and in small tropical islands, but every place around the country in our own backyards. Climate change is happening and it’s happening now.

CURWOOD: Today the levels of heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere are setting us on a course to make our planet hotter than it’s been in 800,000 years.

And the new report warns that if we do nothing the average surface temperature of the planet will continue to get even hotter, by as much as eleven degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

President Obama’s top science advisor, John Holdren, presented the report at the White House. Dr. Holdren is a noted climate expert who in this administration holds the same rank as the President’s National Security Advisor. In a far-ranging conversation, John Holdren was both cautious and upbeat about the future.

HOLDREN: Well I would say the report is clear – the climate is changing – that the impacts are already being felt. In that sense it is a stark report. And in the sense that the projections show all of these adverse impacts getting steadily worse over time, if climate change proceeds unabated, it’s a stark report. But it’s optimistic in the sense that it tells us that if we take appropriate actions to reduce the emissions of the heat trapping pollution that is the main driver of this problem, we can greatly reduce the amount of climate change and the damage from it that occur in the future. And the report is optimistic as well because it is showing the way to steps we can take to adapt to climate change in ways that will reduce the harm over time.

CURWOOD: If the world and the United States doesn’t address climate change, can you give me a couple of examples where people will really notice this.

: Well first of all I would say we’re already noticing it. People are noticing changes in the growing seasons. They’re noticing the increased frequency of wildfires, the increased frequency of floods in the United States. So the place to start is that we really are already experiencing adverse effects of climate change. What we will see if climate change continues unabated is all of these kinds of symptoms that I’ve described will become more severe. I would say that people in the West are likely to notice increasing difficulties with water shortages. In the longer run, one of the most noticeable effects is likely to be the increase in sea level that comes from a warming world and that we’re already experiencing at a rate that is about twice the rate of sea level rise in the 20th century. You would have in some parts of the country where there might be ten or twenty days a year over 100 degrees Fahrenheit now, you would in the future with these large increases in average temperature, you might have 100 or 150 days a year that exceed what you might call the threshold of very, very hot that would have large impacts on agriculture.

Climate change will mean more droughts in the U.S. West, with some places likely to experience more than 100 days per year with temperatures higher than 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

CURWOOD: Impacts on agriculture? What do you mean?

HOLDREN: I mean the productivity of food crops would go down. You wouldn’t be able to grow as much corn or wheat on an acre of land as you can grow today because the heat stress on the plants would be damaging their capacity to grow and bear grain.

CURWOOD: Some people say look, we’re on this path, climate change is inevitable, we’re in it now, it’s simply gonna get worse and the sense comes up that it may just be too late to do anything. How accurate is that?

HOLDREN: I absolutely disagree that it’s too late to do anything. What the science shows above all is that the more climate change we get the more difficult it’s going to be to cope with it. And we have opportunities by acting now and in the future to drastically reduce the amount of climate change we’re gonna be experiencing. I mean this is a very simple proposition: more is worse, less is better. And we have the opportunity, by taking action, to make it less – that’s what we ought to be doing.

CURWOOD: What do we need to do?

HOLDREN: We need to be reducing the emissions of heat trapping pollution and above all that’s carbon dioxide from burning the fossil fuels from which we get most of our energy today, that is from burning coal and oil and natural gas. What we need to do is to use those fuels more efficiently so we don’t have to burn so much of them to get the goods and services that we need from energy. What we need to do is change the technologies we use to burn them so that we can capture a substantial part of the carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released and sequester it away from the atmosphere. We need to use more renewable technologies which don’t emit carbon dioxide or as in the case of sustainably grown biofuels, only emit as much carbon dioxide when they’re burned as they removed from the atmosphere when they were grown. We need to see if we can address the obstacles that have impeded the expansion of nuclear energy in this country and elsewhere because nuclear energy too is a way to get electricity that does not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And we need to take steps to slow down and halt deforestation and other land use practices that are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere along with the burning of fossil fuels.

CURWOOD: Tell me: what are our range of options here? You’ve outlined how difficult things will be if we do nothing. If we do everything, do we still get to avoid more warming here?

HOLDREN: There is nothing that we can to do stop climate change in its tracks. There’s a tremendous amount of momentum built into the climate system. We are not yet experiencing the full consequences of the heat trapping gases we’re already added to the atmosphere, because of time lags in the way the global system responds. So we will see some continuing increase in global surface temperature and regional increases in surface temperatures no matter what we do. But, we have a big opportunity to minimize the amount of change we will experience. The aim that most scientists who study this matter have agreed is one that is still within reach and is highly desirable, would be to stabilize the concentration of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere at a level that would limit the global average surface temperature increase to about three and a half degrees Fahrenheit above the pre-industrial level. Now, if we do everything right, I think we can achieve that. And to tell you what that means, you really have to look at this, first of all, at the global level, because it is the global concentration of these heat-trapping pollutants that determine how much the temperature goes up.

CURWOOD: Now, as I understand it, between the United States and China, there are about 40 percent of the world’s emissions of carbon right now. And I also understand that you were in China with the negotiating team on the Global Climate Change Treaty recently. What do we need China to do in order to have a reasonable agreement on limiting greenhouse gases for the world?

HOLDREN: Well first of all it is correct that China and the United States are the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, and we do total something in the range of 40 percent of global emissions. And that means that there is no way that the problem can be solved without doing both of us taking very significant actions to reduce our emissions. The United States and China are both already doing a number of things to reduce their emissions but we need to do much more. And it has to be expected because the United States is an advanced industrialized country and China remains a developing country, that the United States along with the other industrial nations is going to have to do more sooner – my personal judgment would be that the United States and the other industrialized nations should peak no later than 2015 and be sharply declining in their emissions after that. And that China and other developing countries need to peak between 2020 and 2025, and be sharply declining after that.

CURWOOD: Assess for me the odds of President Obama going to Copenhagen at the conclusion of the current round of international negotiations on climate change. Will he be there do you think?

HOLDREN: I simply cannot comment on that. I just don’t know at this juncture. It will obviously depend on a whole array of issues in terms of what’s on the President’s plate at the time, and whether it appears that there would be a significant benefit from his going to Copenhagen. And I think it’s much to early to predict how that will come out.

CURWOOD: If the President didn’t go to Copenhagen, it would mean that the negotiations hadn’t worked. How dire would that be for the future of the planet and for those of us here in the United States, living under the conditions of climate change that you outline in your report?

HOLDREN: First of all, I’m not sure that the President not going would mean that negotiations had failed. It might mean the negotiations had succeeded without him and he didn’t need to go. He could simply celebrate the success from Washington. But the second thing I would say is we do need an agreement in Copenhagen. And we’re working very hard with our various international partners to make sure that that happens. But the most important single thing the United States can do is to get its own house in order by passing a comprehensive energy climate bill and having that legislation in place because that will demonstrate that the United States is finally prepared to take the leadership role that the world expects of us in addressing this challenge.

CURWOOD: So, there you are in the Executive Office Building. You’re at the White House. If for a moment, the proverbial magic wand was put in your hand to do anything about this, what would be the first thing you would do.

HOLDREN: The first thing I would do is get enough votes in the House and in the Senate to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill.

CURWOOD: The second thing?

HOLDREN: The second thing I would do is advise the President to sign it.

CURWOOD: And the third thing?

HOLDREN: The third thing I would do is work with industry, government, NGOs, universities and so on to generate the degree of innovation in energy technology that will enable us to meet those targets in the most cost effective possible way.

CURWOOD: As science advisor, what’s the one thing that you’d love to do that you just can’t do?

HOLDREN: Take vacations.


CURWOOD: The climate’s not waiting is it?

HOLDREN: [laughing] The climate is not waiting.

CURWOOD: John Holdren is President Obama’s science advisor. Thank you so much.

HOLDREN: My pleasure. Glad to be with you.

YOUNG: Coming up: the few, the proud, the poisoned– Marine veterans still living with a legacy of contamination. Keep listening to Living on Earth.

Listen to LOE Interviews with Holdren: Here

Al Gore, Glenn Beck, Global Warming, and Forced Abortion

Posted in Abortion, Civil Rights, climate change, Climategate, compulsory birth control, Copenhagen, Eugenics, Glenn Beck, Holdren, Maafa21, New World Order, Obama, Population Control, Violence against women with tags , , , , , , , on December 15, 2009 by saynsumthn

Global Warming’s Real Inconvenient Truth

Monday , December 14, 2009
By Glenn Beck

As the private jet-flying, limousine-riding hypocrites address the world’s catastrophic warming in Copenhagen, let me share with you what Canada’s national newspaper, The Financial Post, had to say about it:

The ‘inconvenient truth’ overhanging the U.N.’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world…. A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

This isn’t some conspiracy notion. Look it up, it’s right there in print. It also happens to be law in the most populace nation on Earth. And we’re being bombarded with this climate change catastrophe hysteria every day.

Now, they’re talking about the real solution: Stop having children. Well, OK, the global elite will be generous enough to allow us one — one child.

Let’s put aside for now any religious overtones. Sure, for those of us who believe the Bible to be the word of God, this may seem to be a direct contradiction to the “multiply and replenish” commandment. But, maybe you’re not religious and you’re not concerned about any of that.

Fine, but the where are the women screaming at the top of their lungs about their reproductive rights? Do those rights only extend to eliminating children through abortion or would you like to hang on to your right to have children as well? Can a government tell you what to do with your body? Where’s their favorite chant: “Get the government out of my uterus”? Well, not mine — but, theirs.

And, just for good measure, how about our freedom? Freedom for women, men, mothers, fathers, families.

There is, of course no provision in the Constitution for this kind of intrusion into our lives. So, you may be thinking, this could never happen? Really? Look at the “global” steps being considered on a nearly daily basis: global taxes; global currency; global economic rules; global solutions to climate change:

(Roll Video)

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change, and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global government and global agreements…


We were laughed at and mocked when we pointed out that newly confirmed science “czar” John Holdren advocated population control in the 1977 book he co-authored, titled “Ecoscience.” Among the techniques he considered were sterilants in drinking water and forced abortions, as China has employed. Has he ever denounced those methods? No, he has just stated that the much worried about, population explosion never happened, so they weren’t necessary.

Well, here we are again, worried about population.

The climate cultists are also pushing their “less meat, less heat” mantra. But, if we have to become vegetarians to save the planet, so be it, right? After all, that’s all these nations are trying to do in Copenhagen: Save the planet.

Well, I wasn’t totally convinced of their good intentions, until I saw that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe all plan to address negotiators at international climate talks in Copenhagen this week.

Ahmadinejad — with his track record of threatening to drive Israel into the sea, denying that there are any homosexuals in his country when asked at Columbia about reported executions of homosexuals; prosecuting Iranians who speak out for freedom and causing even the United Nations to voice its concerns about the increasingly grave human rights violations in his country — now there’s a guy I truly believe wants to save the planet.

Or Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe: Look at the shape Zimbabwe’s in; we need to listen to this man!

And don’t even get me started on the credibility of Hugo Chavez.

So, are you as convinced as I am that these fine men, with their track records, really do want to save the planet and not just hurt the West with some ridiculous climate agreement?

And we’re being pummeled with all of this, in the name of a discredited global warming scam. “The Goreacle” and his minions are throwing out even lies more to cover up their initial inconvenient lies.

When asked a question about the Climate-gate scandal, Al Gore piled more lies on top of the ones he’d been peddling for years:


GORE: The north polar ice cap is melting before our very eyes. It’s been the size of the continental United States for most of the last 3 million years. And now suddenly 40 percent of it’s gone and the rest of it is expected to disappear within five, 10, 15 years.


Forty percent of the polar ice caps are not gone and it’s preposterous to believe that they will totally disappear within 10 years. In September of 2007, there was a 25 percent reduction to the usual minimum ice cover. In the two years since, nearly all of the ice has returned.

We are not supposed to be asking these questions. We’re not sticking to their script. Here’s what happens when we don’t follow their rules or agree that the debate is over:

Professor Stephen Schneider is asked an uncomfortable question at a U.N. climate conference — watch U.N. personnel and security shut it down:


UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Sir, I am a member of the press.

UNIDENTIFIED GUARD: If you don’t shut that off I am going to take it away from you.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Sorry sir, we are the press.


I asked you to shut it off. If it happens again I am taking it away from you and you’re going out. Is that understood?


In real science, the debate is never over. The climate cultists keep saying that we are flat-Earthers. Will the media ever notice? They noticed the horrible, scary signs held up by tea party protesters — the ones that warned we were headed in the wrong direction, toward fascism. The media excoriated them over those signs:


UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroots opposition going on here?

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI: I think they’re Astroturf, you be the judge. They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.


But they didn’t even notice the signs held up by the Climate Change supporting protesters — the ones that glorified socialism and communism! These people openly want communism, but the media are silent.

It’s also interesting to me that we are the ones being compared to “flat-Earth” believers. Yet, when Galileo fought against the power structure of his time to enlighten mankind that the Earth wasn’t flat and that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system, it was those who held power that tried to shut him down then — just as those in power try to shut up all those who disagree now.

Well, Galileo is in the tower again. The climate cult is just as much a state sponsored religion now, as the actual state sponsored religion was back in the Dark Ages, punishing Galileo for his opinions. And they’re again locking away the dissenters in a tower of fear, harassment and atmosphere of discrediting some 30,000-plus scientists.

Look, these people have been trying to replace God.

It used to be God, government and you. For centuries, that was the accepted line. Our Founders said, wait a minute, that’s out of order: It should be God, you then government.

Well, to make their new system work — which, coincidentally, is a lot like the old system — climate cultists have to get rid of God. Then they can ask, well who are you to tell me? But if they take God out of the equation, they’re going to need to replace it with something and they have the planet.

Ah, now it works: Earth, government and you. You must serve the planet — the planet replaces God; it’s fixed.

It all comes down to this: The climate cult wants more than just your recycling bin. If that was all this was about, I’d gladly join in. We recycle here at work, I recycle at home. I believe that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of this planet. But what they want is total submission.

It will start with legislation to limit your energy use. It will involve huge taxes — national at first, then global. They will, through the smart grid, control your home thermostat. They will limit the amount you can travel by car. But ultimately, it won’t be enough, as the article in Canada’s Financial Post points out.

The only way to really stop their imagined disaster is to limit the number of human beings on this planet. One child per family is negative population growth. I am against that and I think the science is settled that I’m not alone.

Who are these people that think they can tell us when we can procreate? Where are the people who’ve shouted: government out of my uterus; government out of my choice; government out of my bedroom?

Was it all a lie for you?

Ah, but in the end, their uterus sacrifice will be worth it because the cave-dwelling Piute trout and the salt marsh harvest mouse will finally be able to really thrive. Polar bears could number in the millions — maybe even billions. That will be the ultimate Utopia.

As we approach Christmas, the climate cult is looking more and more like Scrooge to me. And I think Charles Dickens said it best: If we are all going to die anyway, perhaps we had “better do it and decrease the surplus population.”

— Watch “Glenn Beck” weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel

Think forced sterilization and forced abortion can NEVER happen in America? Think Again (Maafa21)

READ: Inconvenient Eugenicist, forced abortions and population control pushed in Copenhagen

Copenhagen unity dissolves as secretly drafted “circle of commitment” by Rich nations is leaked !

Posted in Alex Jones, climate change, Climategate, Copenhagen, Environment, New World Order, Obama with tags , , , , , , , , , on December 8, 2009 by saynsumthn

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN’s negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol
The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN’s role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment” – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol’s principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as “a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks”.

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:
• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;
• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called “the most vulnerable”;
• Weaken the UN’s role in handling climate finance;
• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.
Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

“It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process,” said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

Read Rest here: Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak

Great Climate Change Swindle

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "Great Climate Change Swindle", posted with vodpod


Hacked Off ? Think ‘Climate-Gate’ Is Nonevent? Think Again

Posted in Climategate with tags , , , , , , , , , , on December 3, 2009 by saynsumthn

By John Lott –

The big question is whether universities have too much at stake, both ideologically and financially, to impartially investigate what has happened with Climate-gate

President Obama’s climate czar, Carol M. Browner, and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs might think that Climate-gate is a nonevent, but on Monday Pennsylvania State University announced that it was launching an investigation into the academic conduct of Michael Mann, the school’s Director of the Earth System Science Center. And Tuesday, Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia, announced that he would stand aside as director while his university conducted an investigation.

Dozens of researchers at other institutions could soon face similar investigations. While Dr. Jones has been the center of much of the discussion because the e-mails were obtained from the server at his university, Mann is named in about 270 of the over 1,000 e-mails, many of which detail disturbing and improper academic behavior.

Last week, Mann told USA Today that the controversy over the leaked e-mails was simply a “smear campaign to distract the public from the reality of the problem and the need to confront it head-on in Copenhagen” next week at the climate summit.

Take one of Mann’s e-mail exchanges with Jones. In an e-mail entitled “IPCC & FOI” (referring to the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Freedom of Information Act) Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, wrote Dr. Mann: “Mike: Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report]? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new e-mail address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

Mann acknowledges that he received the e-mail, but he claims that neither he nor anyone else actually deleted any e-mails to hide information from a Freedom of Information Act request on how the U.N.’s IPCC report was written. Yet, his response is quite damning as it seems that he goes along with Dr. Jones. Far from criticizing the request, Dr. Mann wrote back: “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new e-mail is: talk to you later, Mike.”fter the first week of revelations of academic fraud and intellectual wrongdoing, the University of East Anglia denied there was a problem. Professor Trevor Davies, the school’s pro vice chancellor for research, issued a statement on Tuesday claiming: “The publication of a selection of the e-mails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.

The move to investigate the destruction of information requested under the Freedom of Information Act is a big change. In Britain, the destruction of such documents is a criminal offense and the e-mails indicate that Jones had been warned at least once against destroying such information.

On Monday, Mann tried to justify the damaging e-mails by telling the Penn State college newspaper: “Someone being constantly under attack could be what causes them to make a poor decision.” On the one hand, he denies that anything improper happened, but he then seems to accept that improper actions did occur. Regarding pressure, possibly, Mann should ask what the academics, who Mann and others involved in Climate-gate tried to prevent them from publishing in academic journals, think about these events. The e-mails discussed above involve the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s controversial assessment report and raise additional questions about what subterfuge might have been involved in its production.

The big question is whether universities have too much at stake, both ideologically and financially, to impartially investigate what has happened with Climate-gate. Given the amount of taxpayer money at stake, Congress should follow Sen. Inofe’s suggestion and investigate these charges issues of destroyed documents and data as well as the general unwillingness to share the raw data paid for by taxpayers.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a contributor. He is an economist and author of “Freedomnomics.”


In Canada, a determined activist interrupted a CBC broadcast with a message demanding the news network report on the climategate story. His message and act should be repeated here in the United States and around the world.

Climategate: John Holdren- White House’s Alarmist in Chief

Posted in Alex Jones, Cap + Trade, Climategate, Environment, Glenn Beck, Holdren, Life Dynamics, Maafa21, New World Order, Obama, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on November 30, 2009 by saynsumthn

Meet the White House’s Alarmist in Chief
by Peter Hannaford Human Events Posted 11/30/2009 ET

If you had devoted your entire scientific career to predicting the end of the world, what do you think would be the symbol of success with which to crown that career? Why, to be President Obama’s choice as White House Director of Science and Technology. That’s his formal title, but what John Holdren is, in fact, is the nation’s Alarmist in Chief.

Al Gore thinks he invented global alarmism, but he’s a Johnny-come-lately compared with Mr. Holdren who, back in 1971 edited (with population alarmist Paul Ehrlich) a book titled Global Ecology. Also, he supplied one of its essays, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide” in which he predicted that such human-caused phenomena as agricultural dust, jet exhaust and smog would cause a new ice age. Thus, he wrote, “…a sudden slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.” Nowadays, of course, the giant tidal wave will be caused by melting ice caps, not growing ones. One must move with the times.

Holdren has been selling doom for years through academic papers, books and conferences. He has gone from overpopulation to global cooling, nuclear holocaust and global warming. The alarm level never wavers; only the vehicle changes as one disaster fad segues into a new one.

Now his name surfaces as being involved in the e-mail exchanges dubbed “Climategate” in which Climate Research Unit scientists at the U.K.’s University of East Anglia discussed amongst themselves and with others ways and means of suppressing climate data that refuted global warming ideology. Holdren joined in the e-mail exchanges early this year.

That a trove of these e-mails was recently hacked and made public in several online journals and blogs has caused acute embarrassment to the global warming fraternity now that its Copenhagen conference is but a few days away.

Holdren sought to undermine the professional credibility of physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon for papers they published in which they concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the now-orthodox view that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a fact today. AGW is a linchpin of global warming proponents’ argument that human activity causes climate change.

Another who attacked Baliunas and Soon was Michael Mann (inventor of the “Hockey Stick Theory” of climate which many of his fellow-zealots used to buttress their global warming arguments). Mann’s e-mails were in the purloined batch, as were Holdren’s defending him.

President Obama’s Climate Czarina, Carol Browner, leapt into the fray the other day, saying she considered the science of the matter “settled” and that she would stick with the consensus of the 2,500 scientists on the International Panel on Climate Change (the Copenhagen conference group). Alas, the IPCC’s turgid tomes on global warming are written not by scientists, but by bureaucrats of various governments and the United Nations.

Late last week Dr. Eduardo Zorita, a UN IPCC contributing editor, declared flatly that three high priests of the global warming movement “Hockey Stick” Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf “should be barred from the IPCC process.” The reason? Scientists who disagreed with global warming orthodoxy had been “bullied and subtly blackmailed.” Climategate won’t go away.

As for Alarmist-in-Chief Holdren, now that his public profile has been raised as much as it has, the public may also take note of his anti-democratic, anti-freedom views, expounded in his screeds about population. At one point he argued for forced abortion and for putting chemicals in drinking water that would sterilize all in the population but those deemed by the elite to be worthy of exemption.

*** [ MY Comment] NOTE- This idea was suggested by many people and was mentioned to Alan Guttmacher, who was on the board of Planned Parenthood- Check out the film: Maafa21 for more info: (Clip Below)

One of his most recent notions is to blend two of his favorite doomsday concepts by injecting pollutants into the upper atmosphere. The global cooling effect of this would be to sink down to smother the global warming effects of pollution here on earth.

Where are the men in the white smocks with the big nets when we need them?

Mr. Hannaford was closely associated with former President Reagan for a number of years. His latest book is Ronald Reagan and His Ranch: The Western White House, 1981-1989.

Lord Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones talks about Climategate

Posted in Alex Jones, climate change, Climategate, Copenhagen, Environment, Glenn Beck, New World Order, Obama, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 30, 2009 by saynsumthn