Chris Scott

Well … I haven’t updated my blog in a while. Below is a personal treatise on global warming theory that I wrote many months ago for a class when that whole East Anglia U. server hacking ordeal exploded on the news. It’s quite long but I hope you can find it enlightening.

The theory of global warming is quite possibly the most frivolous and absurd lard of pseudo-science to have ever attained legitimacy in Western science and news mediums. If our generation will continue to give validity to this great fabrication, we will certainly be remembered as the dumbest generation to have walked the earth.

It is a shame that it took the illicit workings of a computer hacker to expose, in the media, a few of the crooks orchestrating the global warming con game. Now the only question is why? Why did scientists like Michael Mann and Phil Jones risk their entire careers to put fourth sham science? The answer should be fairly obvious. The head scientists behind global warming theory share the same motives with every liar and deceiver; they did what they do for two things – money and power. The architects of the theory of global warming have a clear aimed and calculated purpose – to persuade individuals to voluntarily forfeit their civil liberties for political causes while, in some cases, enriching themselves along the way with green technology investment schemes. They simply want money and power.

To fully comprehend the duplicity of the theory of global warming, and to understand the methods behind the madness, one must first look at its patriarchs. Al Gore, the ex-vice president of the United States, is often given credit for making global warming a real issue. Gore however, had an accomplice who is not very often named in the circuit of global warming debate.

Maurice Strong was the Canadian socialist who launched the world environmental movement, and, along with Gore, was a forerunner of global warming theory. Strong filled many prominent roles at the United Nations, including the Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In an essay entitled “Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation,” Strong wrote:

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. What is needed is recognition of the reality that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, 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.

Aside from being a proponent of a global government for the sake of “environmental security,” and a socialist, Strong is also, ironically, a businessman. Strong was a partner of Molten Metals Technology Inc., a Gore-endorsed green technology company which received $25 million in tax payer dollars through U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) research and development grants. The firm tanked after DOE scientists recognized the company was not producing commercial products. But just before the company announced that federal funding would be cut, Strong sold his $15.3 million in personal shares, ripping off other investors and making an astronomical profit.

Sitting on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) with Strong is Al Gore, who has also made tremendous profits in similar circumstances. A recent New York Times article puts fourth that “Mr. Gore has invested a significant portion of the tens of millions of dollars he has earned since leaving government in 2001 in a broad array of environmentally friendly energy and technology business ventures, like carbon trading markets, solar cells and waterless urinals.”

According to The New York Times (which takes an apologetic approach to its findings), Gore and his partners decided to invest $75 million into Silver Spring Networks, a company which, soon after, benefited from $560 million in a contract from the Energy Department to install “smart meters,” in homes that record energy consumption.

During the same House hearing that Al Gore compared global warming skeptics to fraudster Bernie Madoff, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) voiced a concern from her constituency that Gore would directly benefit from the recently proposed Cap and Trade Bill. Blackburn asked Gore if he was aware that Kleiner Perkins, a company which Gore was a partner of, had invested billions of dollars in 40 companies that would directly benefit from cap and trade legislation. Gore’s obnoxious reply drew attention to the fact that he had given away millions to green charities like the Alliance for Climate Protection, and told Blackburn that “if you believe the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.”

But perhaps Gore revealed a shred of truth in his answer to Congresswoman Blackburn. Perhaps greed is not the singular motive behind people who promote the global warming scare. Such is the case with Michhail Gorbachev, the second-to-last General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the last head of state of the USSR. Gorbachev was the communist who was referenced in Ronald Reagan’s legendary Berlin Wall speech where Reagan, speaking out of script, famously asserted: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

After running Russia into the ground, Gorbachev, who has never denounced his communist views, became a green movement advocate and founded the Green Cross International environmental organization in 1993.

It is interesting to note that a committed Marxist and a social justice ideologue like Gorbachev suddenly took an interest in environmental causes after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The correlation is a common feature among green movement figureheads like Obama’s ex-green jobs czar Van Jones (another committed Marxist) and Libya’s prime minister Muammar Al Qadhafi, who wrote a three volume book refuting capitalism and advocating a socialist nation state which would find unity under environmental causes.

But the connection that exists between Gorbachev’s environmental and socialist convictions is not one that needs to be inferred. Gorbachev is a member of The Club of Rome, a global think tank formed in 1968 that has the core objectives of globalization, redistribution of wealth and social transformation. The organization published a book in 1991 entitled The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome. In it, Club of Rome President Alexander King and Secretary Bertrand Schneider, revealed the club’s scheme to control humanity through the green movement:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

If the extreme conflict of interests made evident in many of the proponents of global warming is not enough to condemn the theory of global warming as a hoax, the science – or lack thereof – certainly will. Thirty years ago, a group of scientists (including Obama’s science advisor Dr. John Holdren) were predicting humanity would be wiped from the face of the earth as a result of global cooling. At the front of this movement, publishing books and articles warning of an imminent ice age, was Professor Stephen Schneider of Stanford University who is now on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Schneider now warns the exact opposite – that global warming will exterminate mankind if imminent social changes are not made.

Adding to Schneider’s voice are the 2,500 scientists in the IPCC (very few of which are actual climate scientists) who have made themselves out to be a ‘consensus’ on global warming. Except the term is no longer called ‘global warming’; the accepted term, for obvious reasons, is now ‘climate change’.

Climate change activists who lead the way in global warming theory are by no means unchallenged by the rest of the scientific community, specifically those who are actual climate scientists. The opposition in the scientific community might not be as media savvy as Al Gore to have their voices heard, but their opinions are out there. One report to the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, stated that the press has everything wrong and that climate is always changing because “change is the norm.”

John Coleman, the founder of the weather channel, wrote in a recently published article: “It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.”

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970′s to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn’t accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

So why is it that so many scientists are drawn into supporting global warming theory? Coleman explains in his article:

Scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

Coleman echoed this claim in an interview on the Glenn Beck show:

The whole thing had been created. What bothered me was that the other scientists had accepted it. Well, why did they possibly do that? And I think the real answer to that question is that they all have an agenda, an environmental and political agenda that says let`s pile on here, we`re all going to make a lot of money, we`re going to get research grants, we`re going to get awards, we`re going to become famous. And I guess that`s what happened.

Considering, among other conflicting scientific data, that the earth has actually been in a cooling stage for the past 11 years, and that many of the leading proponents of global warming theory have apparent ulterior motives, it is more plausible that life threatening global warming is not a reality. Many scientists contribute climate changes (which are not only safe but beneficiary to life on earth) to natural processes such as shifts in oceanic cycles and changes in amounts of energy received from the sun’s rays affected by solar eclipses, among other things.

It is very difficult to give credibility to energy activists like Al Gore, who, with $30,000 in annual utility bills, consumes 20 times more energy than the national average according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. It is equally difficult to make any changes in lifestyle when reading recent headlines like “New Zealand: Coldest October in 64 years,” “NOAA: Third Coldest October on Record,” and “Australian sea levels rising at less than 1/3 of predictions.” Perhaps the media is beginning to face the cold hard facts produced by real science and will soon stop adhering to quackery set forth by ideologues looking to manipulate the public for socio-political and economic reasons.

Sources
Alexander., King,. The First Global Revolution A Report. New York: Pantheon Books, 1991. Print.

Englund, Eric. “Global Warming: Socialism’s Trojan Horse.” LewRockwell.com. 22 Feb. 2002. Web. 4 Dec. 2009. .

McLeod, Judi. “Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it.” Canada Free Press: Online conservative newspaper, News, Politics, Editorials. 13 Mar. 2007. Web. 4 Dec. 2009. .