Sustainable Development/Agenda 21 for Dummies
Are You Sustainable?
Sustainable Development is a framework of thought to "save our planet" by harmonizing eco-systems with industry and population. In its most modern iteration (inasmuch it has been around a long time), it is the outcome of the Earth Summit, and is organized around "climate change", man's impact on environmental resources and the organic biosphere we live within. It is currently getting notoriety as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which is the Treaty that legally binds all nations to Agenda 21. Although much larger than this, we could summarize that it is the outcome of the Rio Earth Summit where Al Gore unveiled his Inconvenient Truths. It is a blueprint to 'radically change the entire world in the name of Economic, Social, and Environmental equity.
We ask ourselves where did Obama’s entire team of Czars’ come from? What is their role? Where did the language for all these massive Bills come from? Most of Obama's czars are from the world of academia and had been contributors to the thoughts that went into this Global Vision as perceived and outlined by the United Nations.
At the Earth Summit meeting Al Gore said: "Americans are going to have to face a wrenching transformation of Society." Mr. Sagar of the Eden Foundation submits, “It is inherently illogical and otherwise irresponsible to suggest that human activity does not possess the potential to alter the Earth’s climate.” Alexander King, Founder of the Club of Rome adds: "Unless we find the means to change our thinking I can see little hope in solving the supreme problem for humanity – its impending extinction.”
And they are steadily putting these ‘truths’ into practice. Just a few weeks ago, the United Nation held the Conference on the World’s Financial and Economic Crisis. UN General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto blatantly moved the conference to denounce the free market system, saying, “Capitalism cannot be reformed…”He went on to say, “Egotism and greed cannot be corrected ...we must go beyond controls and corrections... to create something that strives towards a new paradigm of social coexistence.”
Based upon so-called ‘scientific proof’ that man is killing the planet, an entire framework of thought has evolved to re-shape the globe. It makes no difference that this evidence doesn’t even conform to the principles of the Scientific Method, nor even if it did, that it proves man has created climate change. The conclusions from these scientific tests are speculative. What does matter though is the importance it has to foisting a political agenda!
The scientific proofs of this political agenda are based on conclusions that are extrapolated from a school of thought known as the ‘precautionary principle’. In a nutshell, the precautionary principle translates to this: If there is any possible risks, stop. If evidence is inconclusive, stop. If there is no proof, stop anyway. As a political agenda, the latter is transformed to mean that in the absence of proof, just repeat what you want others to believe long enough so that they also believe it, then pass legislation to prevent its’ outcome. Clever, isn’t it? This is the ‘science’ created by politicians, and it is this irrationality that is the driving force behind the notion of man-made climate change. It is this irrationality that has concluded that pets and babies are destroying our planet. If politics was not the engaged in the influence of people, a better case could be made that fish poop in the ocean, therefore fish are destroying our planet. Sadly, fish don’t pay taxes, so they are allowed to poop us into oblivion.
Although 31,708 U.S. scientists have published research and tried to argue vehemently against the data upon which 'the radical transformation of our Society’ is being predicated upon; have you heard any of them? They have been silenced, ridiculed, driven out of teaching positions, had Grants cut off, and some even imprisoned. 'The Plan' will not tolerate dissent. The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is ‘authored’ by approximately 600 scientists. These ‘authors’ are not permitted power of approval over the publication. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.
Sustainable Development theory has encroached upon every American in ways they have not even recognized. The language of Sustainable Development has pervaded our society. When Bush signed us into UNESCO, the education of our children was to teach them global citizenship and environmental stewardship. Globally acceptable "truths" are now:
Global Warming is globally-acceptable truth.
The United Nations’ Declaration on Human Rights is globally-acceptable truth.
Universal health care is globally-acceptable truth.
Environmentally friendly transportation is globally-acceptable truth.
The common good over the individual is globally-acceptable truth.
Sovereign nations as a source of war is globally-acceptable truth.
Global governance for the future peace of man-kind is globally-acceptable truth.
Global citizenship is globally-acceptable truth.
Severe reduction of the population is globally-acceptable truth.
Many people have been forever speaking of some major 'conspiracy theory' afoot, and alluding to The North American Union, or the New World Order. They were partly right, although wrong. There is no conspiracy...there is no secret. If this is a conspiracy, it is the worst kept secret ever made by mankind, as it is published everywhere. You can type Sustainable Development in your search engine, and the millions of hits it will return will range from the U.S. Government, the United Nations, every major University, Corporation, NGO's (non-government organizations), and on and on. Wow! Stealthy, aren't they? When last I looked, there were over 26 million hits. Some secret!
Remember, Sustainable Development is the theory. The 'bad guy' is Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is the means to implement the theory. Again, shhhhhh...this is very hush-hush stuff, returning only 58 million hits when put into the search engine! If you want to find out when the noose will tighten about your neck, well that too is well published and is called the Marrakech Transition Process. It only returns a paltry 1 million hits.
G.H. Bush signed Agenda 21 in 1992. He did not need ratification or congressional process because this is not a treaty, it is merely a set of 'soft-laws'. In 1993 Bill Clinton; by Executive Order; created the President's Council of Sustainable Development. The Council of Czars, if you will.
So while Conservatives flop around ineffectually because they have been so easily duped into dissecting all the content of the massive bills being thrown at us, the context from which it all stems from has been marching forward. Conversely, while Liberals are unwittingly cheering a universal Utopia because the context is being packaged behind a cascade of obfuscations, they fail to look at any content that could dispel the myths. Agenda 21 is completely bi-partisan, for when the coffin lid on America and personal freedoms shuts, we all suffocate together. Meanwhile, the Politicians are laughing at us, realizing how easily manipulated the people are.
The framework for all the language contained in these massive bills coming out of the House, are straight out of Agenda 21. Just by reading the 40 chapter titles of this document would give one a pretty good understanding of what is going on if they are in the least politically aware and can connect the dots.
"All biological life has natural cycles of birth and death, and we should learn to accept these natural cycles and teach people that saving lives at birth or extending life at our times end is non-sustainable". In other words, what these Sustainabilist's are saying is..."can't you just have the good grace to simply die, rather than be a strain on Society"? Or, "why can't you just accept your baby was born defective and can never be a contributing member to Society, and have the decency to simply let 'it' die". Can this really be happening? Yes, it is happening. Every re-iteration of Health Care Reform bills have heavy taxes to be levied against Medical Devices. These devices are the ones used to sustain life, to extend life. They simply must be run out of business! There are heavy restrictions and taxes to be levied against any/all homeopathic supplements and other Natural Supplements that will force subscription to only those drugs that are supported by our Regime. Those drugs will become vastly reduced as well, as life extending drugs will be increasingly limited. Cures that make economical sense will be endorsed. Prevention and Extension are deemed non-sustainable.
Two major components of Sustainable Development are de-population/population control and bio-equity. As Cass Sunstein announced: "animals and all living creatures have equal rights to humans." We may laugh, but they are laughing harder as they re-shape the map of the United States in nefarious ways to meet the objectives of Sustainable Development. The political goal (in the name of 'climate change') is to have all population living in government-controlled urbanized enclaves, where private transportation choices will become a thing of the past. We are to live, work, and socialize within these cities, brought to you under the lexicon of 'smart growth', and all its derivative language. This can't be true, you may say. Yes it is. The San Joaquin Valley is being starved as their economy is shut-down to protect the smelt. Logging villages are being shut-down in Oregon to preserve the spotted owl (as if they could not fly anywhere else). Over 400,000 square miles of the United States is currently being ‘grabbed’ by the Government in the name of the Agenda 21 Wildlands Project, referred to hereafter as TWP. (The Wildlands Project). There are currently 39 massive WP’s ongoing in the United States this very moment with the objective to engineer population distribution.
TWP is just one of many different ways our land is being grabbed so we can be shuffled into the pre-planned zones of population. Wildlife Preserves, National Parks, National Forests, Heritage Lands, etc., are some of the other numerous ways. It's real noble sounding too! Over the last 10 years the United States has added 27 species to the endangered species list. Over the last 6 months, Cass Sunstein has added 681. What does this mean? It means you have got to go, because this bug has equal rights to you, and you are encroaching upon its equitable rights.
This link will take you to maps that show how our country is to be organized, and how our population is to be re-distributed. Notice the language used on the map legend. We get to live in ‘Normal Use -Zones of Cooperation’. I could go into great detail about what ‘Zones of Cooperation’ actually means. Trust me, you won't like it. Without delving into this subject matter, suffice it to say there is a plethora of cooperation ongoing with Local and Federal Government Agencies as we speak. These alliances are created via Public/Private Partnerships (PPP's), Non-Government Organizations (NGO's), and Stakeholder Councils. Every State, every County, and most cities already have ‘cooperative agencies’ , this link taking you to just one of hundred’s.
I would be remiss if I failed to point out that the Supreme Court upheld the legality of Eminent Domain. Who will get eminent domain privileges? Why co-operating entities of course! Those PPP's are companies that agreed to keep their mouths shut and play ball with this agenda, in order to get the goodies and protection of the U.S. Government. Cronyism extraordinaire!
Private property and single family homes are deemed non-sustainable. Cap and Trade is clearly outlined in Agenda 21, and as you may be aware, if this passes it gives the Federal Government almost full control over your property. The EPA will determine if your house meets the standards it decides (for the moment) are acceptable to them so you can re-sell your home. This is one insidious slippery slope. Yes, your name will still be on the deed, but the choices on how you live in your house will not be left up to you. You get to pay the bills, you have to pay the taxes, and you will have to pay the fines levied against you as the Government starts handing out violation notices. Your house will become your nightmare! Your electricity, air conditioning, heating, water, insulation, roof, windows, doors, etc., will all be subject to new regulations.
Another aspect of Cap and Trade (straight out of Agenda 21) is sustainable water usage. This plays a major role throughout all aspects of Agenda 21. Currently, the average American household uses 100 gals/day of water. This will be limited to 26 gals/day. Cows are non-sustainable, they require too much water, land, and they emit too much methane. Both Healthcare and Cap & Trade are taking care of this pesky problem. Hope you like tofu and bean sprouts. These are just a couple of examples among thousands.
It all can be summarized this way: Sustainable Development is essentially the ‘land grab’. The Wildlands Project is the ‘water grab’. Health Care Reform is the ‘body grab’. Cap and Trade is the ‘private property grab’. It is much more complex of course, but it can readily be discerned when you consider all the new Codex Laws for Agriculture that have been passed, all the enumerated powers given the USDA, EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc. These ‘grabs’ are being enacted in numerous ways, but they all flow from Agenda 21.
This is meant only as a primer, to open your eyes, to make you aware of this ‘secret’ plan to "radically transform America" If you are among the youth of today, feeling a bit aimless and uncertain of your future, the good news is you have a Life Plan, no need to fret. If you are a citizen that has diligently organized your life and you are obtaining the goals of your Life Plan, well, I have some bad news for you---your plan is being replaced by someone else's plan.
Additional Important Reading:
The Green Economy
Planet De-Population
The Tyranny of Sustainable Education
Return to Eden
Until you know where the battlefield is, you have no chance of winning the War.
A word document is enclosed below so that you can print this out and help getting it delivered to the public. Your country needs you NOW!
Sustainable Development is a framework of thought to "save our planet" by harmonizing eco-systems with industry and population. In its most modern iteration (inasmuch it has been around a long time), it is the outcome of the Earth Summit, and is organized around "climate change", man's impact on environmental resources and the organic biosphere we live within. It is currently getting notoriety as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which is the Treaty that legally binds all nations to Agenda 21. Although much larger than this, we could summarize that it is the outcome of the Rio Earth Summit where Al Gore unveiled his Inconvenient Truths. It is a blueprint to 'radically change the entire world in the name of Economic, Social, and Environmental equity.
We ask ourselves where did Obama’s entire team of Czars’ come from? What is their role? Where did the language for all these massive Bills come from? Most of Obama's czars are from the world of academia and had been contributors to the thoughts that went into this Global Vision as perceived and outlined by the United Nations.
At the Earth Summit meeting Al Gore said: "Americans are going to have to face a wrenching transformation of Society." Mr. Sagar of the Eden Foundation submits, “It is inherently illogical and otherwise irresponsible to suggest that human activity does not possess the potential to alter the Earth’s climate.” Alexander King, Founder of the Club of Rome adds: "Unless we find the means to change our thinking I can see little hope in solving the supreme problem for humanity – its impending extinction.”
And they are steadily putting these ‘truths’ into practice. Just a few weeks ago, the United Nation held the Conference on the World’s Financial and Economic Crisis. UN General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto blatantly moved the conference to denounce the free market system, saying, “Capitalism cannot be reformed…”He went on to say, “Egotism and greed cannot be corrected ...we must go beyond controls and corrections... to create something that strives towards a new paradigm of social coexistence.”
Based upon so-called ‘scientific proof’ that man is killing the planet, an entire framework of thought has evolved to re-shape the globe. It makes no difference that this evidence doesn’t even conform to the principles of the Scientific Method, nor even if it did, that it proves man has created climate change. The conclusions from these scientific tests are speculative. What does matter though is the importance it has to foisting a political agenda!
The scientific proofs of this political agenda are based on conclusions that are extrapolated from a school of thought known as the ‘precautionary principle’. In a nutshell, the precautionary principle translates to this: If there is any possible risks, stop. If evidence is inconclusive, stop. If there is no proof, stop anyway. As a political agenda, the latter is transformed to mean that in the absence of proof, just repeat what you want others to believe long enough so that they also believe it, then pass legislation to prevent its’ outcome. Clever, isn’t it? This is the ‘science’ created by politicians, and it is this irrationality that is the driving force behind the notion of man-made climate change. It is this irrationality that has concluded that pets and babies are destroying our planet. If politics was not the engaged in the influence of people, a better case could be made that fish poop in the ocean, therefore fish are destroying our planet. Sadly, fish don’t pay taxes, so they are allowed to poop us into oblivion.
Although 31,708 U.S. scientists have published research and tried to argue vehemently against the data upon which 'the radical transformation of our Society’ is being predicated upon; have you heard any of them? They have been silenced, ridiculed, driven out of teaching positions, had Grants cut off, and some even imprisoned. 'The Plan' will not tolerate dissent. The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is ‘authored’ by approximately 600 scientists. These ‘authors’ are not permitted power of approval over the publication. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.
Sustainable Development theory has encroached upon every American in ways they have not even recognized. The language of Sustainable Development has pervaded our society. When Bush signed us into UNESCO, the education of our children was to teach them global citizenship and environmental stewardship. Globally acceptable "truths" are now:
Global Warming is globally-acceptable truth.
The United Nations’ Declaration on Human Rights is globally-acceptable truth.
Universal health care is globally-acceptable truth.
Environmentally friendly transportation is globally-acceptable truth.
The common good over the individual is globally-acceptable truth.
Sovereign nations as a source of war is globally-acceptable truth.
Global governance for the future peace of man-kind is globally-acceptable truth.
Global citizenship is globally-acceptable truth.
Severe reduction of the population is globally-acceptable truth.
Many people have been forever speaking of some major 'conspiracy theory' afoot, and alluding to The North American Union, or the New World Order. They were partly right, although wrong. There is no conspiracy...there is no secret. If this is a conspiracy, it is the worst kept secret ever made by mankind, as it is published everywhere. You can type Sustainable Development in your search engine, and the millions of hits it will return will range from the U.S. Government, the United Nations, every major University, Corporation, NGO's (non-government organizations), and on and on. Wow! Stealthy, aren't they? When last I looked, there were over 26 million hits. Some secret!
Remember, Sustainable Development is the theory. The 'bad guy' is Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is the means to implement the theory. Again, shhhhhh...this is very hush-hush stuff, returning only 58 million hits when put into the search engine! If you want to find out when the noose will tighten about your neck, well that too is well published and is called the Marrakech Transition Process. It only returns a paltry 1 million hits.
G.H. Bush signed Agenda 21 in 1992. He did not need ratification or congressional process because this is not a treaty, it is merely a set of 'soft-laws'. In 1993 Bill Clinton; by Executive Order; created the President's Council of Sustainable Development. The Council of Czars, if you will.
So while Conservatives flop around ineffectually because they have been so easily duped into dissecting all the content of the massive bills being thrown at us, the context from which it all stems from has been marching forward. Conversely, while Liberals are unwittingly cheering a universal Utopia because the context is being packaged behind a cascade of obfuscations, they fail to look at any content that could dispel the myths. Agenda 21 is completely bi-partisan, for when the coffin lid on America and personal freedoms shuts, we all suffocate together. Meanwhile, the Politicians are laughing at us, realizing how easily manipulated the people are.
The framework for all the language contained in these massive bills coming out of the House, are straight out of Agenda 21. Just by reading the 40 chapter titles of this document would give one a pretty good understanding of what is going on if they are in the least politically aware and can connect the dots.
"All biological life has natural cycles of birth and death, and we should learn to accept these natural cycles and teach people that saving lives at birth or extending life at our times end is non-sustainable". In other words, what these Sustainabilist's are saying is..."can't you just have the good grace to simply die, rather than be a strain on Society"? Or, "why can't you just accept your baby was born defective and can never be a contributing member to Society, and have the decency to simply let 'it' die". Can this really be happening? Yes, it is happening. Every re-iteration of Health Care Reform bills have heavy taxes to be levied against Medical Devices. These devices are the ones used to sustain life, to extend life. They simply must be run out of business! There are heavy restrictions and taxes to be levied against any/all homeopathic supplements and other Natural Supplements that will force subscription to only those drugs that are supported by our Regime. Those drugs will become vastly reduced as well, as life extending drugs will be increasingly limited. Cures that make economical sense will be endorsed. Prevention and Extension are deemed non-sustainable.
Two major components of Sustainable Development are de-population/population control and bio-equity. As Cass Sunstein announced: "animals and all living creatures have equal rights to humans." We may laugh, but they are laughing harder as they re-shape the map of the United States in nefarious ways to meet the objectives of Sustainable Development. The political goal (in the name of 'climate change') is to have all population living in government-controlled urbanized enclaves, where private transportation choices will become a thing of the past. We are to live, work, and socialize within these cities, brought to you under the lexicon of 'smart growth', and all its derivative language. This can't be true, you may say. Yes it is. The San Joaquin Valley is being starved as their economy is shut-down to protect the smelt. Logging villages are being shut-down in Oregon to preserve the spotted owl (as if they could not fly anywhere else). Over 400,000 square miles of the United States is currently being ‘grabbed’ by the Government in the name of the Agenda 21 Wildlands Project, referred to hereafter as TWP. (The Wildlands Project). There are currently 39 massive WP’s ongoing in the United States this very moment with the objective to engineer population distribution.
TWP is just one of many different ways our land is being grabbed so we can be shuffled into the pre-planned zones of population. Wildlife Preserves, National Parks, National Forests, Heritage Lands, etc., are some of the other numerous ways. It's real noble sounding too! Over the last 10 years the United States has added 27 species to the endangered species list. Over the last 6 months, Cass Sunstein has added 681. What does this mean? It means you have got to go, because this bug has equal rights to you, and you are encroaching upon its equitable rights.
This link will take you to maps that show how our country is to be organized, and how our population is to be re-distributed. Notice the language used on the map legend. We get to live in ‘Normal Use -Zones of Cooperation’. I could go into great detail about what ‘Zones of Cooperation’ actually means. Trust me, you won't like it. Without delving into this subject matter, suffice it to say there is a plethora of cooperation ongoing with Local and Federal Government Agencies as we speak. These alliances are created via Public/Private Partnerships (PPP's), Non-Government Organizations (NGO's), and Stakeholder Councils. Every State, every County, and most cities already have ‘cooperative agencies’ , this link taking you to just one of hundred’s.
I would be remiss if I failed to point out that the Supreme Court upheld the legality of Eminent Domain. Who will get eminent domain privileges? Why co-operating entities of course! Those PPP's are companies that agreed to keep their mouths shut and play ball with this agenda, in order to get the goodies and protection of the U.S. Government. Cronyism extraordinaire!
Private property and single family homes are deemed non-sustainable. Cap and Trade is clearly outlined in Agenda 21, and as you may be aware, if this passes it gives the Federal Government almost full control over your property. The EPA will determine if your house meets the standards it decides (for the moment) are acceptable to them so you can re-sell your home. This is one insidious slippery slope. Yes, your name will still be on the deed, but the choices on how you live in your house will not be left up to you. You get to pay the bills, you have to pay the taxes, and you will have to pay the fines levied against you as the Government starts handing out violation notices. Your house will become your nightmare! Your electricity, air conditioning, heating, water, insulation, roof, windows, doors, etc., will all be subject to new regulations.
Another aspect of Cap and Trade (straight out of Agenda 21) is sustainable water usage. This plays a major role throughout all aspects of Agenda 21. Currently, the average American household uses 100 gals/day of water. This will be limited to 26 gals/day. Cows are non-sustainable, they require too much water, land, and they emit too much methane. Both Healthcare and Cap & Trade are taking care of this pesky problem. Hope you like tofu and bean sprouts. These are just a couple of examples among thousands.
It all can be summarized this way: Sustainable Development is essentially the ‘land grab’. The Wildlands Project is the ‘water grab’. Health Care Reform is the ‘body grab’. Cap and Trade is the ‘private property grab’. It is much more complex of course, but it can readily be discerned when you consider all the new Codex Laws for Agriculture that have been passed, all the enumerated powers given the USDA, EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc. These ‘grabs’ are being enacted in numerous ways, but they all flow from Agenda 21.
This is meant only as a primer, to open your eyes, to make you aware of this ‘secret’ plan to "radically transform America" If you are among the youth of today, feeling a bit aimless and uncertain of your future, the good news is you have a Life Plan, no need to fret. If you are a citizen that has diligently organized your life and you are obtaining the goals of your Life Plan, well, I have some bad news for you---your plan is being replaced by someone else's plan.
Additional Important Reading:
The Green Economy
Planet De-Population
The Tyranny of Sustainable Education
Return to Eden
Until you know where the battlefield is, you have no chance of winning the War.
A word document is enclosed below so that you can print this out and help getting it delivered to the public. Your country needs you NOW!
- Attachments:
-
-
Agenda 21 For Dummies.doc, 405 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce on -
Maurice Strong... Canadian Oil Billionaire... and the UN's most favored son...
Introduced Edmund de Rothschild on the Fourth World Wilderness Conference in September 1987, held in Denver and southern Colorado: “One of the most important initiatives that is open here for your consideration is that of the Conservation Banking Program. As mentioned this morning, we have [inaudible] here the person who really is the source of this very significant concept. He was/is one of the trustees of the International Wilderness Foundation which sponsored this meeting. He was at the first of these conferences. His conversion to the relationship between conservation and economic development has been a pioneering one... Many of the energy developments that we have seen have come from his early anticipation of our energy needs... And I'm just delighted to have this opportunity of introducing to you, Edmund de Rothschild.”
Edmund (Pilgrims Society) thanks “Maurice” and gives a speech about Global Warming and what to do about the melting polar caps, the stuff we are all familiar with today. David Rockefeller (Pilgrims Society), James Baker (Pilgrims Society), and Michael Sweatman (Royal Bank of Canada; president World Conservation Bank; close associate of Edmund de Rothschild) also gave speeches. The charge for attending the multi-day conference was $650 and was visited by about 1500 businessmen. George Hunt, who attended the conference, was warned (indirectly) by David Rockefeller not to distribute any rebukes of what was said or “he would regret it.”
1985-1987 & 1989-1992. Undersecretary-general of the United Nations
Former Chairman the Stockholm Environment Institute which was established in 1989. It worked with the recommendations made during the 1972 Stockholm Conference.
1991. Strong writes introduction to book published by Trilateral Commission, titled ‘Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology,’ by Jim MacNeil. David Rockefeller wrote the foreword of that book.
1992. Secretary-general of Rio Earth Summit. Only NGOs accredited by UN Conference were permitted to attend. Former chairman International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN).
1992. Member of Privy Council of Canada, the same year that Paul G. Desmarais, Sr., Conrad M. Black, and Charles R. Bronfman (brother of Edgar Bronfman, Sr.) were also made members.
1992-1995. Chairman and CEO of Ontario Hydro
1992-1996. Commission on Global Governance
1992. Co-founder, Earth Council Institute (he still is anno 2005). Ruud Lubbers (Dutch Prime Minister 1982-1994) and Mikhail Gorbachev (president of the USSR until 1991; established the Green Cross, among its directors Shimon Peres) were among those who helped in its creation. In 1994, these people, Maurice Strong, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Ruud Lubbers joined together again to launch a civil society Earth Charter initiative. Considered a chief architect of the Kyoto Accord of 1997, because the regulations to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations started with the Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit, in Rio of 1992, headed by Maurice Strong.
An international Earth Charter Commission was formed in 1997 (with Maurice Strong, Steven C. Rockefeller (second son of Nelson Rockefeller), and Mikhael Gorbachev among the handful of commissioners), and an Earth Charter secretariat was established in Costa Rica, where today it is affiliated with the UN University for Peace. In 2000, the Earth Charter was formally launched at the Peace Palace (built by Andrew Carnegie) in The Hague in the presence of Queen Beatrix. The mission of the Earth Charter Initiative is, “To establish a sound ethical foundation for the emerging global society and to help build a sustainable world based on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice and a culture of peace.”
1995-1998. Strong is Chairman of the World Resources Institute
The earlier mentioned ‘Pittsburgh Live’ article also states that Maurice Strong is very good friends with: Kofi Annan (UN head, advised by Strong); Malloch Brown (works for Annan); Al Gore (former US vice president, intermarried with the Schiff family, presidential campaign sponsored with $100,000 from Strong); Tongsun Park (Koreagate, long history of bribing/blackmailing government officials, indicted in Oil-For-Food scandal); Louise Frechette (UN deputy secretary-general accused of having ordered the shredding of incriminating Oil-For-Food documents, actually an investigator of the Oil-For-Food scandal, has spoken to the Pilgrims Society); James Wolfensohn (used to sit on the Rockefeller Foundation board, former business partner of Lord Jacob Rothschild, former president of the World Bank, the head of J. Rothschild Wolfensohn & Co., was Oil-For-Food investigator); and Rockefeller-protégé Paul Volcker).
Strong was a senior advisor to James Wolfensohn when the latter was head of the World Bank from 1995 to 2005. Maurice was / is advisor to United Nations secretary-generals Boutros-Ghali & Kofi Annan.
1998-1999. Chairman of High Level Expert Panel reviewing the Consultative Group on Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Member of the World Water Commission, formed in 1998, which concluded that fresh water will become scarce in the future. It also recommended privatization of water companies.
1998-2001. Member of International Advisory Board of Federation of Korean Industry. Former director of UN Foundation, established in 1998 through money of Ted Turner, but sponsored by many corporations and foundations.
1999- President of the Council of the University for Peace in Costa Rica
2003- Member of the International Advisory Board of Governors of the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) Paul Martin (from well-connected Roman Catholic family; Privy Councilor), Canada's Prime Minister since 2003, has stated a few times that Maurice Strong acted as his mentor.
2003- Chairman, International Advisory Board, CH2M Hill Group Inc.
2003- Director Toyoto Motor Corp; Zenon Environmental, Inc., World Society; First Color. Corp.; Baca Corp.; Consolidated Press Holdings; and, the Humane Society of the United States. Former chairman and member of the foundation board of DAVOS/World Economic Forum.
2003- Member of International Advisory Board, Center of International Development (Harvard) and the Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues at The University of British Columbia.
2003- President of the World Federation of United Nations Association. Fellow of the Royal Society (U.K.), the Royal Society of Canada, and the Royal Architectural Society of Canada. Member of the Yale Club, University Club, and the Vancouver Club. Currently chairman of Strovest Holdings and Technology Development Corporation.
-
Permalink Reply by Savant Noir (Admin) on -
It does get complex...it goes ON and On and On!
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce on
-
I provide you some reputable resources, including several from the libertarian CATO Institute. However, I will not retrace the detective work, as it would require a considerable summation of several notebooks of material that I have not viewed in 9 years.
Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, and the UN Rio Summit. The central figure is Maurice Strong, a Canadian petroleum billionaire (his biography is attached). Strong has been the gray imminence behind the United Nations Secretary General for years. He was an adviser to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and he is the primary mover behind Al Gore’s global warming charade. He is the face of Agenda 21… the race to eliminate humans from most of the “wild lands.”
Responding to a reporter asking why he gave large donations to both political parties in the United States during the 1988 election cycle… “Because I wanted influence in the United States.” - Maurice Strong, quoted in Saturday Night magazine.
“[I am] a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” - Maurice Strong, Macleans.
“[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.”
Maurice Strong, September 1, 1997 edition of National Review.
“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.” Maurice Strong, Session I, Rio Earth Summit.
“Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse." - Maurice Strong, September 1, 1997 edition of National Review.
While Bill Clinton was president, Strong used his U.N. position to centralize power there at the expense of U.S. national sovereignty. In 1972, U.N. Secretary General U Thant tapped Strong to organize and direct the ‘Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment.’ The conference came to be known as the first “Earth Summit.” The following year, Strong became the first director of the U.N. Environment Program. These two positions marked the beginning of his methodical march toward global governance. Strong’s most significant role was his position as Secretary General of the 1992 ‘U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development,’ aka, the “Rio Earth Summit.” Initially, Strong was blocked from participation by the U.S. Department of State. However, after learning of this, Strong persuaded George Bush to overrule the DOS.
Strong is involved in the U.N. Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Through his work in UNESCO, Strong promotes “Gaia,” the Earth goddess, among the world's youth. Strong was also a director of The Temple of Understanding in New York City. He used the facility to encourage Americans concerned about the environment to replace Christianity with the worship of “mother earth.” http://www.templeofunderstanding.org/ A good article on this “Green... http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0500greenreligion.htm
Strong directs the U.N. Business Council on Sustainable Development. Under his leadership, the council works to affect peoples’ lives through policies that attempt to reduce the availability of meat products; limit the use of home and workplace air conditioners; discourage ownership of private motor vehicles; encroach on private property rights; and, work to reduce the number of single family homes.
Maurice Strong’s website:
http://www.mauricestrong.net/
Short biographical sketch:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/DossierStrong.html ( http://www.nationalcenter.org/index.html )
AGENDA 21& SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,
THE CATO INSTITUTE:
Index:
http://www.cato.org/search_results.html?cx=006606822365722333854%3A...
Selected Articles:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv22n1/bookreviews.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3586
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1580
http://www.cato.org/pubs/chapters/marlib21.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-449es.html
http://www.cato.org/events/china/papers/taylor.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/chapters/chinamil24.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1035
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa358append1.pdf See E.O. 12582
AGENDA 21, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,
CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA (CWA):
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/1384/CWA/nation/1998-07_fv_globalism.s...
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1951&department=CWA&a...
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/1982/CWA/nation/index.htm
UN Reference Document: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1953&department=CWA&a...
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/1301/CWA/life/index.htm
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/1874/CWA/nation/index.htm
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/1668/CWA/misc/index.htm
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1955&department=CWA&a...
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/1951/CWA/nation/index.htm
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/1828/CWA/nation/index.htm
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/1954/CWA/nation/index.htm
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1295&department=CWA&a...
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/1877/CWA/nation/index.htm
Other submitted documents:
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm
http://www.unesco.org/mab/doc/brs/Strategy.pdf
-
Permalink Reply by Savant Noir (Admin) on
-
Wow! Most of this I have, some is new...it ALL is great...(if you consider being vastly depressed and feeling hopeless as something "great"). In the sort time I have been at this,.i have accumulated 17,000 pages! ARGH!!! I really appreciate the links though, because between your links, and others I have provided on my 9 posts on this subject matter...there is a plethora of information we provide. It's great. Now, if only someone would listen to us.
I post all my Agenda 21 stuff on FB as well...some others pick it up and run with it. You should try this too!
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce on
-
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces2...
“…But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments. When duties are laid, not for purposes of revenue, but of retaliation and restriction, to countervail foreign restrictions, they are strictly within the scope of the power, as a regulation of commerce. But when laid to encourage manufactures, they have nothing to do with it. The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress, than the power to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states.”
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce on
-
Sav... here is something to make you laugh ... for a little while...
About a year ago I had a "discussion" with a fellow traveler whom made a Petroleum Blog (downstream ventures) his home... The site used to be one of open discussion about oil and energy, until the "peak oil" tyrants took control and turned the blog into a flagship of environmentalist-global warming-climate change-wacko conjecture. Here is an example I dug out of my "vault." I read it now and laugh... until I remember who is in power... then I cry.
Proof that Liberals are Psychologically Warped... or My Conversation With a Liberal
“Your posts have just started to sound very much like another old poster named Sky. He could not get through a post without calling people names and making sure we knew how stupid he thought we all are... I hope that does not become the case with you.”
I do not know “Sky” or “SkyKing” or whom it is you write of. I do not call-out-the-dogs unless they are turned on me for having an opposing view, and at least I keep it civil.
Why should I respect the credentials put forth in support of some particular expert on any subject, if when I present similarly-credentialed individuals (albeit, those with opposite viewpoints) they are derided as “phony” or “irrelevant”? Is it not better to state an opposing view thus: “I disagree, and here is why...” then list your specific points of contention? How else may I follow the logic of your argument?
Reference to posting rules: “... That is the text at the top of the board I am reading...I hope it is the same on yours ...”
I did not begin this debate, as I recall, I interjected an opinion into the ongoing discussion. Some took that off topic, and I responded in kind, but then made the attempt to steer the discussion towards the ‘Off Topic’ section.
“Name three major river systems that have not been ravaged by the effects of humans.”
I can not, but neither are you able to name anyplace on Earth not ravaged by nature's own destructive powers, which far exceed anything man could achieve, even if he were to place every resource to the task. How many humans have lost their lives to nature's violence? I could cite a list pages long. Google Krakatau and do a sub-search of “natural catastrophes” back to ancient times – the death toll is astounding.
The difference between us is that you see humanity as a plague on the Earth. That is not to say that mankind has been innocent of horrific acts of ignorance or arrogance – and human history testifies as much, but I see the good too.
“I never said anything about fairness, and certainly not about cooperation. We don't live in a fair world. I consume way too much. I didn't make the world we live in. Generations before have formed what we live with now. Our ancestors lived on this planet for a long time without destroying the land base. It has only been say the last 6,000 years give or take that the dominant culture has decided that it actually doesn't need a living planet in order to survive.”
You take “fairness” out of context. What you assert is not what I stated or implied. I asked that you give disclosure before attempting to chastise all humanity for its sins.
What purpose to raise the issue of “cooperation,” and is that not what you require to accomplish your goal(s)?
How do you know what our ancestors did or did not do; and more pointedly, how would you know their motives? You condemn the last 6,000 years of humanity; but did you live among them, or the stone-age peoples whom existed before them?
You imply that prehistoric man was more civilized then all who came after, but present no hard evidence in support of this presumption. You believe that, 6000 years ago, people set out to purposefully destroy the planet? That seems a bit overreaching.
Why are you so angry? If you “consume way too much” then change your lifestyle. Do not make it your crusade to change the lifestyle of others. Deal with your own situation. In short, and I do not mean this in disrespect: mind your own business.
“My parents, grandparents, etc. made the world we live in the way it is. I am ready to stand up and tear down the parts they screwed up.”
Well, friend, bully for you. I have gratitude for the efforts of my parents and ancestors. I am sure they made errors, but, unless you have a board across your butt and nails through your hands, you ought not be smug in your newly-realized perfection, as it appears more of a guilt trip you wish to lay upon others, rather than simply clean-up your own mess.
“I could just reduce my impact as much as possible and go about my business... and the raping of the world would continue.”
“Raping of the world”? I know things can get ugly at times, but I think you are being melodramatic with this statement. It's a bit over the top.
“You can put what ever name tag on it that you like and say that I am a killer no better than a nazi, that is where Sky went.”
How did we go from “raping of the world” to me accusing you of being a “killer” and a “Nazi”?! Come back to reality, please. I made no such inference of your character.
“We live in a culture of death. We are afraid of it. We remove it from our lives. Old people to the old folks home. Chickens to the factory farms... all that getting old and taking care of yourself is just too messy.”
Friend, you are going off in every conceivable direction but straight; but since you raise the issue: If we live in a “culture of death” – and I do not disagree – then you might look first at those whom imply here that “reducing” half the global population (by what means they are rather timid to state) is the answer to our problems. You might look at those who think killing the unborn is not just “a right” but a duty. You might consider those that hold the credo of “death with dignity” – euthanizing the disabled, the terminally ill, and the “unproductive” elderly. Every creature fears death, but some do more than others.
“Used to be that if a member of society wanted to start destroying the land base where their people lived. That person would be killed before they were able to do much damage. Now we call it capitalism, and if you don't want to be a part of the insanity of destroying that which gives us all life...then you are perceived as a fringe freak.”
What society was that? You just cited “the culture of death” – and before that, how much more civilized we were 6000 years ago. Now you are providing me with rationalizations about how those ancient “civilized” ancestors might kill some poor fool for stepping on a frog. And you think I am rigid?
We call killing someone who is “destroying the land base” capitalism? Can you run that up the flagpole again? I think it got lost in the translation. Call me crazy, but if you destroy your own house, then you cannot very well sell it to your neighbor for a profit.
“But I have to ask you. Who is more insane the guy who is willing to allow every stream and every mother's breast milk in the world to be polluted with toxins. Or the one who wants to put an end to it.”
Who is insane? I do not know—but I am certain you will eventually tell me... That is if I don't self-immolate first. I am trying hard to follow your tale of woe, but you keep going off into the twilight zone. How did we get from “the culture of death” to souring some mother’s breast milk for crying out loud? Something tells me this does not end happily.
“GW is just one of the issues that the powers that be want us to not think about. Just go back to checking the sports page. Trust us, everything is going to be just fine. Just don't ask too many questions okay.”
How can anyone not think about GW, when every Tom Dick n’ Harry is screaming the thing in our ears 24/7? I do not read the ‘Sports’ page... I could care less about who's on first base … Oh sorry, that's comedy... this is a tragedy... Please continue...
“Enjoy”
I can't – you might kill me for “destroying the land base.”
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce on
-
AMERICAN PHYSICISTS WARNED NOT TO DEBATE GLOBAL WARMING
Written by Andrew Orlowski, the Register
Monday, 21 July 2008
Bureaucrats at the American Physical Society (APS) have issued a curious warning to their members about an article in one of their own publications. Don't read this, they say - we don't agree with it. But what is it about the piece that is so terrible, that like Medusa, it could make men go blind?
It's an article that examines the calculation central to climate models. As the editor of the APS's newsletter American Physics Jeffrey Marque explains, the global warming debate must be re-opened.
"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion," he wrote.
American Physics invited both believers and sceptics to submit articles, and has published a submission by Viscount Monckton questioning the core calculation of the greenhouse gas theory: climate sensitivity. The believers are represented by two physicists from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, who state that:
"Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality."
But within a few days, Monckton's piece carried a health warning: in bright red ink.
The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions. Not so much Medusa, then, as Nanny telling the children what not to think.
"The first sentence is nothing more or less than a deliberate lie," writes Professor John Brignell on his Numberwatch blog. "The second is, to say the least, contentious; while the third is an outrageous example of ultra vires interference by a committee in the proper conduct of scientific debate."
Monckton has asked for an apology. In a letter to the APS President Arthur Bienenstock, he writes:
"If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the ‘overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community’; and, tertio, that ‘The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions’? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?"
Believers and sceptics have spent the past few days examining the value of "peer review", and the weight of validity that should be placed on "publication". Monckton is a classics scholar and former journalist, which believers maintain is enough to disqualify him from holding an opinion.
(Whether it is science is not in question - whether it is "good science" or "bad science" is the question. An earlier presentation by Monckton examining questioning climate sensitivity received was examined by NASA's Gavin Schmidt on the believers' blog, RealClimate.org.)
But for anyone without a dog in this race, and perhaps not familiar with the "state of the science" there may be a couple of surprises in Monckton's paper.
One is how small the field of "experts" really is. The UN's IPCC is tasked with producing a summary of the "scientific consensus" and claims to process the contributions of some 2,500 scientists; but as Monckton writes:
"It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted." [Our emphasis]
Another eye-opener is his explanation of how the believers' climate models are verified:
"Since we cannot measure any individual forcing directly in the atmosphere, the models draw upon results of laboratory experiments in passing sunlight through chambers in which atmospheric constituents are artificially varied," writes Monckton. "Such experiments are, however, of limited value when translated into the real atmosphere, where radiative transfers and non-radiative transports (convection and evaporation up, advection along, subsidence and precipitation down), as well as altitudinal and latitudinal asymmetries, greatly complicate the picture."
In other words, an unproven hypothesis is fed into a computer (so far so good), but it can only be verified against experiments that have no resemblance to the chaotic system of the Earth's climate. It is not hard to see how the scientists could produce an immaculate "model" that's theoretically perfect in every respect (all the equations balance, and it may even be programmed to offer perfect "hind-casting"), but which has no practical predictive value at all. It's safe from the rude intrusion of empirical evidence drawn from atmospheric observation.
The great British-born physicist Freeman Dyson offered an impertinent dose of reality which illustrates the dangers of relying on theory for both your hypothesis and the evidence you need to support it. Since 8 per cent of atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the planet's biomass every year, notes Dyson, the average lifespan of a carbon molecule in the atmosphere is about 12 years. His observation leaves the "climate scientists" models as immaculate as they were before, but suggests a very different course of policy action. It suggests our stewardship of land should be at the forefront of CO2 mitigation strategies. That's not something we hear from politicians, pressure groups and, yes ... climate scientists.
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce on
-
Bucking the media trend on global warming 'crisis'
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 3/9/2009 8:15:00 AM
NEW YORK CITY - Speakers at a conference on climate change are making the case that the alarmism behind the global-warming bandwagon is politically motivated, has nothing to do with science, and could affect the sovereignty of the U.S.
The second annual International Conference on Climate Change hosted by The Heartland Institute is well under way in New York City. More than 700 registrants have gathered in the Big Apple to hear more than 70 scientists -- representing the views of tens of thousands of their colleagues -- make the argument that media and environmental advocacy groups have it all wrong, that global warming is not a crisis.
One of the headlining speakers to open the event Sunday evening was European Union and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who was welcomed with a standing ovation. Klaus, one of the most outspoken critics of manmade global warming in Europe, says those who propagate global-warming hysteria are like the communists of old Europe. Like global-warming alarmists, he stated, the communists did not listen to opposing views. "They didn't even try to argue back," said Klaus. "They considered you a naïve, uninformed and confused person, an eccentric complainer....It is very similar now."
Klaus believes that politicians who propagate global warming hysteria only have one goal in mind: control of the public. "It is evident that the environmentalists don't want to change the climate," he said. "They want to change our behavior...to control and manipulate us."
And he warns that those same politicians wish to engage in energy rationing -- all because of a problem that he believes does not exist. Klaus concluded his speech with this remark. "The environmentalists speak about saving the planet. We have to ask -- From what? And from whom?" said the EU leader. "I think I know [those answers] for sure. We have to save the planet, and us, from them."
Opposition an 'uphill battle'
Dr. Richard Lindzen, who has been Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT for over 25 years, was one of the keynote speakers on the opening day. He said global warming hysteria is more about a political agenda and has nothing to do with science.
"I think [there is] one point you should notice as one discusses the science, and that is that global warming alarm -- as far as I can tell -- has always been a political movement, a highly organized one," Lindzen observed. "And although it took me a while to realize this, opposing it has always been an uphill battle."
The MIT professor, one of the world's most respected atmospheric physicists, said that many of his good friends and colleagues have subscribed to global warming alarmism because they either fear for their jobs or see it as a way to get funding for scientific projects. He also discussed the use of supposed "climate models," and quipped that as scientists debate intelligent design, climate models are an example of "unintelligent design."
Lindzen contends that climate models are being fed erroneous information in order to get the results that global-warming alarmists want.
Throwing money away
Dr. Michael Coffman is the CEO of Sovereignty International, a U.N. watchdog organization. During an interview at the conference with OneNewsNow, he explained that the basis of his skepticism regarding global warming comes from research he himself has conducted. "During the 1980s and early 1990s, I lead a multimillion-dollar research effort on global warming and found that the data that was being collected just didn't support the hypothesis that man was causing global warming," says Coffman.
Therefore he concludes that any money thrown at fixing the alleged problem is a waste. "Any amount of money that we spend on it is not going to change any temperatures whatsoever," he observes, arguing that every family in America will be affected. "Because depending upon what legislation is passed, it will actually cause every American family to spend at least two- to five-thousand dollars more a year...to try to support this effort to curb carbon-dioxide emissions."
Coffman warns that politicians are moving towards having an international tribunal established which will regulate carbon emissions. "Which means basically since carbon dioxide is involved in all elements of business in the United States, whoever does this controls the economy of the United States, and therefore our sovereignty," he cautions.
Later Monday a keynote speaker from Congress will be discussing the political aspect of global warming in greater detail.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=440562
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce on
-
Here are the facts about supposed Anthropogenic Climate Change:
Ice core data consistently shows the CO2 increases come about 800 years AFTER the temperature increases.
The Citadel of CO2 measurement, Mauna Loa station, sits atop the world's largest active (CO2-belching) volcano.
CO2 levels have been higher than today on three other occasions within the last 200 years.
The IPCC recognizes the CO2 findings of one scientist, George Callendar, to the exclusion of 90,000 other measurements taken by hundreds of other scientists over the last two centuries.
95% of all CO2 is generated by nature; the other 5% from man.
99.999% of all water vapor is generated by nature; 0.001% by man.
Water vapor by a factor of 26 has more of a Spectral Absorption or warming influence than does CO2.
After the contributions of CH4, N2O, and CFCs are considered the total warming effect from man is 0.28%; the other 99.72% is caused by nature!
In terms of watts per square meter, the global warming effect from greenhouse gases is only about 1/20 of the global warming effect from increased low level clouds, produced by increased condensation nuclei, produced by increased cosmic ray flux, created by modulation of the Earth's magnetosphere, caused by increased solar wind and coronal mass particle ejections, caused by change in the Sun's angular momentum, caused by planetary mechanics.
Ask solar physicists and they will tell you that we have entered a global cooling phase that will reach a maximum within another 20 years. Solar cycle is 8 months overdue. For every day the Sun remains blank of spots, the colder the seasons will become. Instead of worrying about global warming, I suggest everyone find out where to buy a pair of snow shoes. You will need them!
For more information go to www.aconvenientfabrication.com.
http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?Lang=En&n=A1D5E643-1
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Pred...
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
These links should get you started.
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce on
-
Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
Updated 7/17/2008
After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"
In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."
According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."
Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce on
-
The world has never seen such freezing heat
By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/11/2008
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.
If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)
Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.
Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.
Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.
-
Permalink Reply by Lorene on -
Thank you for this important summary. To me this is a bit overwhelming. I have never even heard of "Agenda 21" before. Would you say that all of our elected officials are well aware of this? Are they all going along with it without so much as a word of decent? We The People have for too long trusted that those we elect will do more-or-less the right thing for our country and to protect our freedoms and constitution. It seems clearer day-by-day that this trust has been broken and we now find evil itself has penetrated our government in every corner.
© 2010 Created by Savant Noir (Admin).
Powered by 
.
