Undoing all the misinformation and damage that climate change fear mongers have created will be a difficult task, indeed. Unless you are of the mindset that government ought to control energy consumption via taxation and redistribution of wealth, than you understand the enormous fraud that has taken place and continues to take place across the globe today.

Thanks to famous actors and ideologues such as Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Barack Obama and other propagandists, who ensued a campaign well over a decade ago to undermine science, avoid contention, and convince the world that man-made “global warming” will dangerously impact the planet unless the world acts immediately, Americans at the rate of 3 to 1 think man is more responsible for global warming than naturally occurring causes.

For the alarmists, acting immediately would mean taxing first corporations, later individuals, for carbon output, then dictating how wealthy, developed nations force and fund poor, underdeveloped nations to reduce carbon emissions. In a perfect world, and if you believe man made global warming is true, harmful and controllable, funds would be used to reduce worldwide carbon emission and prevent global temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

In application, however, such carbon reduction would return energy consumption in the United States to the unlikely scenario of consumption seen in the early 1900s, cost an estimated $40 trillion a year, and keep much of the world’s wealth from investing freely in other worthy activities such as creating jobs that empowers the individual and grows the economy, and in a broader perspective, takes much needed funds away from causes such as ending poverty or developing cures for deadly diseases.

The International community

Most of the wind beneath the fear monger’s wings is based upon four Reports of the International Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) first published in 1990 with its fourth Assessment published in 2007. The panel assembled by the United Nations, prepared the report using legislative language so that nations could easily enact their own laws to begin reducing carbon emission to UN directed levels.

Recall the UN is the same body that fumbled the “Oil for Food” program designed to provide food to hungry people in the Middle East, but instead doled out funds and favors to greedy politicians and interlopers. It is only smart to question the veracity of a UN report, and certainly there is nothing “stone aged” about debating a topic that can have dramatic effects on the entire planet.

Thank goodness people think and object

Climate Change Reconsidered is a 700+ page Report published in June 2009 that analyzes the four reports presented by the IPCC.  Here are some of their findings:

• IPCC ignores the potential for positive feedback due to increased CO2.
• There is clear evidence of productivity benefits to plant life due to CO2 enrichment.
• IPCC temperature models contain major inadequacies and fail to simulate basic weather conditions.
• The IPCC fails to document the Medieval Warm Period, which occurred about 1,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period in the 1^st century AD.
• Exaggerated estimates of recent warming relied on discredited surface-station temperature data.
• The IPCC failed to adequately account for changes in the technology used by temperature stations over the years and adjustments to raw data compounded measurement errors.
• Temperature history provides no evidence for CO2 induced global warming, and in fact, the evidence argues against it.
• No obvious global trend of an increase in glacier melts in recent years.
• No evidence of a sudden change in temperature at the end of the 19^th century.
• Increases in aerosols diffuse solar radiation from reaching the earth’s surface.
• The IPCC’s claims of “unprecedented” warming are untrue.
• Late 20th century warmth is no different from warming in the 1930s and 40s when CO2 concentration was less than today.
• Temperature predictions made by NASA’s James Hansen in 1998 failed to materialize to date.
• Nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented about current level of earth’s warmth.

Even though the proposals trumped up by the fear mongers are draconian, grossly expensive, and unrealistic to implement, onward they go, promoting “climate change” as if the UN gets it right every time. Ha!

How to make it rich

Alarmists are determined to ignore criticism and accusations of fraud, and are moving forward with the same contentious and economically disastrous agenda. Never mind that the science doesn’t match the detail or that the rhetoric doesn’t match the facts, for these progressives, one way or the other, controlling the masses, and redistributing wealth is more important than admitting fault for bad analysis and bad policy.

Collecting funds from rich nations in a time of economic crisis will prove impossible to gather, still the Copenhagen Consensus Center would like to see developing nations commit 0.2% of GDP which amounts to about $100 billion a year to fund “green energy” development and “cut carbon emissions and reduce global warming.”

This is of course based on the speculative assumption that carbon emissions will dramatically decrease when and if better technology is invented that produces sufficient enough energy to replace current demand. Yet no one knows what upcoming effective energy innovations are on the horizon, if at all or how the general public will react to it.  The “experts” who refuse to debate the opposition because they say there is “consensus” on the matter, have one specific goal:  Dictate how world wealth is allocated, centralize control, and in the process – make it rich!

For example, Cap & Trade is legislation designed to force companies to pay extra for carbon emission the government deems excessive. In order for companies to use more carbon than allotted, it could purchase carbon credits from someone who is not using “excessive” amounts.  The system would run on an exchange that is overseen by the government, where ultra rich people, like Al Gore, can trade carbon credits earning a percentage of funds per trade.

Media involvement

Many researchers contend that scientists knew of the uncertainty of the theory but purposely did not disclose it, perpetrating a mass fraud on the public.  The question for capable lawyers, now that mounting evidence shows man made global warming to be false is, who is culpable for the cover up?  The question for capable scientists is, how do we move forward in protecting the environment without all the smoke and mirrors?

Not even the “journalist” elite ala New York / L.A. Times, Washington Post, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, or most of academia, did properly vet this important story of corruption and lies.  Even the President of the United States is part of the hoax.

Obama, involved in the “green” movement in Chicago for years, was instrumental in implementing the Chicago Climate Exchange in 2001 that collected $1.1 million dollars in federal funds marketing itself as the first North American cap and trade system. Maurice Strong, Canada’s most powerful alarmist sycophant is on the board of Directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, and is described by Stefan Fobes as the “architect” of the Koyoto Treaty.

The Chicago Climate Exchange is intimately involved with Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management Company created in 2004, so that Mr. Gore could sell carbon credits to himself.  This company would later serve as an international model for cap and trade legislation. Both Strong and Gore have made millions of dollars off the man made global warming theory, it’s not surprising that they fight tooth and nail against the opposition.

One has to wonder whether the President is serious when he suggests that the American people, at the behest of their own labor, commit to global funding to curb carbon emission at a time when America has no money to spend. It would be amusing, if not so serious, that the Whitehouse is in charge of convincing China to submit to UN carbon regulation and fines that would drastically affect its economy, when America already owes China trillions of dollars.

What now?

There is absolutely no reason to spend so much time and so much money conjuring solutions to a problem that may not exist. Global warming is really about perpetrating a global socialist society aimed at redistributing wealth on an international scale. The scientific material presented in Reconsidered is clear:  The science of global warming is anything but settled, thus continued research and review moving forward is key.

Sooner rather than later, the unknown un-elites must convince the uninformed elites that we know man made global warming fear mongering is a scheme to redistribute wealth on a global scale, otherwise once set in motion, global control of energy consumption will be impossible to undue – God help us all.

Thanks to famous actors and ideologues such as Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Barack Obama and other propagandists, who ensued a campaign more than a decade ago to undermine science, avoid contention, and convince the world that man-made “global warming” will dangerously impact the planet unless the world acts immediately, Americans at the rate of 3 to 1 think man is more responsible for global warming than naturally occurring causes.

For the alarmists, acting immediately would mean taxing first corporations, later individuals, for carbon output, then dictating how wealthy, developed nations force and fund poor, underdeveloped nations to reduce carbon emissions. In a perfect world, and if you believe man made global warming is true, harmful and controllable, funds would be used to reduce worldwide carbon emission and prevent global temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

In application, however, such carbon reduction would return energy consumption in the United States to the unlikely scenario of consumption seen in the early 1900s, cost an estimated $40 trillion a year, and keep much of the world’s wealth from investing freely in other worthy activities such as creating jobs that empowers the individual and grows the economy, and in a broader perspective, takes much needed funds away from causes such as ending poverty or developing cures for deadly diseases.

On the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center at Copenhagen Business School, Bjorn Lomborg suggests a “rethink” of implementation of carbon emission reduction. Not a rethink of the science behind man-made global warming, no, but a new approach to selling the same product.

Borrowing a page from the Obama playbook, alarmists are determined to ignore criticism and accusations of fraud, and are moving forward with the same contentious and economically disastrous agenda. Never mind that the science doesn’t match the detail or that the rhetoric doesn’t match the facts, for these progressives, one way or the other, controlling the masses, and redistributing wealth is more important than admitting fault for bad analysis and bad policy.

Knowing full well that collecting funds from rich nations in a time of economic crisis will prove impossible to gather, Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus Center would like to see developing nations commit 0.2% of GDP which amounts to about $100 billion a year (much cheaper than the $40 trillion plan) to fund “green energy” development and “cut carbon emissions and reduce global warming far more quickly”.

Their proposal is based on the speculative assumption that carbon emissions will dramatically decrease when and if better technology is invented that produces sufficient enough energy to replace current demand. Of course no one knows what upcoming effective energy innovations are on the horizon, if at all, or how the general public will react to it, so I find it difficult to understand why these so called “experts” and their cohorts, who refuse to debate the opposition because “consensus” on the matter, in their eyes, is established, should dictate how world wealth is allocated.

Obviously the panel that recommends the move, comprised of more than two dozen “experts” did not spend time reviewing the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (“Reconsidered”) published in June of 2009 when preparing its findings, because if they had, they would have known that a list of 31,478 scientists (dwarfing their number) are appended to Reconsidered in general support of the perspective that scientific questions remain as to whether a global warming trend exists, is dangerous, and is caused by man- made carbon emissions.

Here are some of the findings in Reconsidered:

• Late 20th century warmth is no different from warming in the 1930s and 40s when CO2 concentration was less than today.
• Sharp temperature rise in early 1920s (highest documented ever) was followed by a nearly equivalent temperature drop four decades later.
• Nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented about current level of earth’s warmth.
• Both the Roman and Medieval warm period was warmer than current temperatures.
• Exaggerated estimates of recent warming relied on discredited surface-station temperature data.
• Temperature predictions made by NASA’s James Hansen in 1998 failed to materialize to date.
• Temperature history provides no evidence of CO2 induced global warming; there is however evidence to show the opposite.
• Proven propensity that high CO2 levels enhance vegetative productivity increasing the world’s plants.
• Plants emit gases that convert to biosols resulting in more clouds that reflect sunlight and act to cool the planet.
• Some consider CO2 perturbations to have been caused by changes in climate, rather than vice-versa.

The question for capable scientists, now that mounting evidence shows man made global warming to be false, should be who is culpable, not how do we avoid the evidence. Researchers contend that scientists knew of the uncertainty of the theory but purposely did not disclose it.

On January 14, 2010, the National Center for Public Policy Research issued the following press release (in part):

“Washington, DC – In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts . . . are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy . . . Professor Mann is currently under investigation by Penn State University because of activities related to a closed circle of climate scientists who appear to have been engaged in agenda-driven science. Emails and documents mysteriously released from the previously-prestigious Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom revealed discussions of manipulation and destruction of research data, as well as efforts to interfere with the peer review process to stifle opposing views. The motivation underlying these efforts appears to be a coordinated strategy to support the belief that mankind’s activities are causing global warming.”

All of this and those folks over in Denmark are discussing how to better market a product that they weren’t able to sell in the first place? Call me stupid, but shouldn’t they be investigating the reported fallacies and contradictions to the man made global warming theory instead?

Sad as it is that the “journalist” elite ala New York/ L.A. Times, Washington Post, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and many other subjective news organizations, and most of academia, have failed miserably to uncover this important story of corruption and lies, it’s worse when the President of the United States is part of the hoax – knowingly or not.

Obama, involved in the “green” movement in Chicago for years, was instrumental in implementing the Chicago Climate Exchange in 2001 that collected $1.1 million dollars in federal funds marketing itself as the first North American cap and trade system. Maurice Strong, Canada’s most powerful alarmist sycophant is on the board of Directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, and is described by Stefan Fobes as the “architect” of the Koyoto Treaty.

The Chicago Climate Exchange is intimately involved with Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management company created in 2004, so that Mr. Gore could sell carbon credits to himself, and would later serve as an international model for cap and trade legislation. Both Strong and Gore have made millions of dollars off the man made global warming theory, it’s not surprising that they fight tooth and nail against the opposition.

Sooner rather than later, the unknown un-elites have to convince the uninformed elites that we know man made global warming fear mongering is a scheme to redistribute wealth on a global scale, otherwise once set in motion, global control of energy consumption will be impossible to undue – God help us all.