Undoing all the misinformation and damage that global warming fear mongers have created is a difficult task indeed. Unless you are of the mindset that government control of worldwide energy consumption via taxation and redistribution of wealth is a good thing, you should understand the enormous fraud that has taken place in the world today.

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.