The Green Movement is After Your Children

Children die in harsh Peru winter

Editor:

Let me get this straight. The  global warming nonsense started as a fight against CO2 emissions which left unchecked would cause the earth to warm to the point of threatening the very existence of man. The ice caps would melt and the oceans would rise. The fertile farm lands would become parched from lack of rain and the top soil would blow away. People would starve to death.

We were told we must shut down fossil fuel generation of electricity and replace it with intermittent, expensive renewable energy. If we did not do this right away man would surely be doomed.

For the last three years I have said  global warming was just another fraud by the elite to push their  NEW WORLD ORDER SCAM  on the unsuspecting public.

Since I first wrote about the Global Warming Scam, it has been renamed Climate Change.

Welcome to reality folks. The CO2 emissions have continued to rise while at the same time temperatures have continued to  fall.

Read the story below and then start asking some hard questions. I put some links at the end to help you understand the fraud and who is behind it.

Almost 250 children under the age of five have died in a wave of intensely cold weather in Peru.

Children die from pneumonia and other respiratory infections every year during the winter months particularly in Peru’s southern Andes.

But this year freezing temperatures arrived almost three months earlier than usual.

Experts blame climate change for the early arrival of intense cold which began in March.

Winter in the region does not usually begin until June.

The extreme cold, which has brought snow, hail, freezing temperatures and strong winds, has killed more children than recorded annually for the past four years.

Full Story at  the BBC

Below are a few links to posts on my blog. Please look around as there are many other stories on global warming to be found here.

Global Warming the Big LIE!

THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX

Playing politics with global warming

I Was Fired by Al Gore!

Al Gore Global Governance London July 7 2009

Al Gore speaking in London on July 7 2009 talks about the need for Global Governance.

Enron was the start point for the carbon scam  along with the UN Global Warming Scam

Maurice Strong and Al Gore

Find the typo and get a free carbon credit- LOL! Al makes his own maybe he’ll send you one

David Suzuki Speaks in 1972 People = Maggots

Suzuki has been spinning the same crap for a very long time.  The man makes his living by instilling fear, mostly in young minds. Global warming is a fraud and Suzuki knows it. Or, he’s a complete fool and should be banned from the media. Meet David Suzuki – 1972 at the age of 32

Playing politics with global warming

Editor:

One more reason to question global warming.

We are being manipulated into accepting a global carbon tax propagated by dubious science.

If they succeed in their “EVIL” scheme, your life and the lives of your children will be negatively impacted forever.

Think about it!  A tax on ever aspect of your life because without carbon NOTHING exists.

Playing politics with global warming

Mark W. Hendrickson

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is widely regarded in the media as the ultimate authority on climate change. Created by two divisions of the United Nations, and recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, its pronouncements are received as if they come down from Mount Olympus or Mount Sinai. The common presumption is that the IPCC has assembled the best scientific knowledge.

Let’s take a closer look at this organization to see whether it merits such uncritical deference.

The IPCC’s Feb. 2007 report stated: It is “very likely” that human activity is causing global warming. Why then, just two months later, did the vice chair of the IPCC, Yuri Izrael, write, “the panic over global warming is totally unjustified;” “there is no serious threat to the climate;” and humanity is “hypothetically … more threatened by cold than by global warming?”

IPCC press releases have warned about increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, yet Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and [the] level of gases in the atmosphere.”

A 2001 IPCC report presented 245 potential scenarios. The media publicity that followed focused on the most extreme scenario, prompting the report’s lead author, atmospheric scientist Dr. John Christy, to rebuke media sensationalism and affirm, “The world is in much better shape than this doomsday scenario paints … the worst-case scenario [is] not going to happen.”

Clearly, the IPCC does not speak as one voice when leading scientists on its panel contradict its official position. The solution to this apparent riddle lies in the structure of the IPCC itself.

What the media report are the policymakers’ summaries, not the far lengthier reports prepared by scientists. The policymakers’ summaries are produced by a committee of 51 government appointees, many of whom are not scientists.

The policymakers’ summaries are presented as the “consensus” of 2,500 scientists who have contributed input to the IPCC’s scientific reports. “Consensus” does NOT mean that all of the scientists endorse the policymakers’ summaries.

In fact, some of the 2,500 scientists have resigned in protest against those summaries. Other contributing scientists, such as the individuals quoted above, publicly contradict the assertions of the policymakers’ summaries.

To better understand the “consensus” presented in the policymakers’ summaries, it is helpful to be aware of the structure of the IPCC. Those who compose the summaries are given considerable latitude to modify the scientific reports.

Page four of Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work states: “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group of the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”

In other words, when there is a discrepancy between what the scientists say and what the authors of the policymakers’ summaries want to say, the latter prevails.

Here is a specific example: One policymakers’ summary omitted several important unequivocal conclusions contained in the scientists’ report, including, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic [i.e., man-made] causes,” and “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

These significant revisions were made, according to IPCC officials quoted in Nature magazine, “to ensure that it [the report] conformed to a policymakers’ summary.”

Elsewhere, Rule 3 of IPCC procedures states: “Documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.”

In practice, IPCC sometimes bypasses scientific peer review, and the policymakers’ summaries reflect only governmental (political) review.

This shouldn’t be surprising. After all, the IPCC is a political, not a scientific, entity. It is the “Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change,” not a “global SCIENTISTS’ panel.”

Also, “consensus” is a political phenomenon, a compromise, whereas scientific truth is not subject to obtaining a political majority.

(Actually, 31,000 scientists have signed a petition protesting the “consensus” that human activity is dangerously altering the Earth’s climate. Consider that against the 2,500 scientists cited by IPCC — many of whom publicly refute IPCC’s press releases.)

To its credit, the IPCC debunks many of the alarmist exaggerations of radical greens. However, its scientific authority remains irreparably compromised by political tampering.

When a U.S. State Department official writes to the co-chair of the IPCC that “it is essential that … chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner,” the political character of IPCC is plain.

The sponsors of the IPCC, the United Nations, and liberal American politicians all share the goal of reducing Americans’ wealth by capping our consumption of energy with a binding international climate change treaty. They are willing to resort to scientific fraud to further their goal.

In the words of Al Gore’s ally, former Under-Secretary of State Tim Wirth, “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing” by reducing Americans’ consumption of fossil fuels. Keep that in mind whenever the IPCC is cited in support of a climate treaty.

[Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City (Penn.) College.]

The Citizen

Burger King Calls Global Warming "Baloney"

Editor:

I don’t eat much fast food but if this  sign was in front of a fast food near me I’d make an exception. Hats of to the independent operator of the Burger Kings mentioned in this story.

Global Warming is a huge fraud and if you don’t understand by now – You aren’t  too Bright!

If you live near one of these Burger Kings drop in, buy a burger and show your support.

Enjoy the story

.

Burger King Calls Global Warming “Baloney”

Posted by Chris Davis on Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:19 PM

UPDATE: This story has been updated here. A Burger King Corporation spokesperson has told the Flyer that the signage in question was limited to “five stores.” Flyer readers have reported at least 10 stores that at one point had the signage. Whatever the number, the language was put up by a local franchiser, and does not reflect BK’s corporate outlook. I must admit that the nightmares I have about Burger King’s regally creepy mascot already leave a bad taste in my mouth. But if the fast food industry’s most famous underdogs are really taking a stand against global warming science, I’m breaking up with the oh-so-delicious Whopper for good. And I mean it this time.Businesses usually don’t court political controversy, but signs at (at least) two Memphis Burger King locations read: “Global Warming is Baloney.” According to one employee at the Burger King on Union Avenue and Pauline, that’s no mistake.

Care to eavesdrop on my incredibly strange conversation with a female BK employee who didn’t identify herself? Read on.

Me: Hi, I’m calling from the Flyer about your sign. Does Burger King really think global warming is baloney?
BK: [Hangup]
Me:(calling back): Your sign out front says global warming is baloney.
BK: I don’t see that sir.
Me: Well it does.
BK: I don’t see that sir… I change the signs and that sign’s been up for a week.
Me: Well, I have pictures that I took this afternoon [cross conversation ensuring I’m calling the correct BK. I am]
Me: So there’s no question that your sign said it and so did one in Midtown. I want to know if it was on purpose or if it was a prank someone pulled on you.
BK: Let me get the manager. [several minutes of dead air then the same or very similar voice picks up.]
BK: Who were you holding for?
Me: A manager, about the sign. I have pictures of the sign and people have called me upset. I just want to know if it’s a mistake or not so I can report it. [rehash of previous conversation]
BK: Let me go outside and look at the sign and I’ll call you right back. [exchange of contact info]

[phone rings, I answer]
BK: The sign was put up yesterday.
Me: And it’s not a mistake?
BK: No.
Me: It reflects the opinion of BK international?
BK: Yes. Would you like to talk to the home office? I can give you a number.
Me: I’ve got the number, I’ve already contacted them. Thanks.

Full post at the Memphis Flyer

Al Gore Exposed by Congress Global Warming

Gore is and always has been a con man.  Google Al Gore and Enron or Al Gore and Maurice Strong.  The Liberal Party of Ontario is involved in the scam. Either that or McGuinty and his party  are completely stupid.

Either way, they must change direction or be brought to justice.

Watch Gore squirm in this C-Span video.

Ontario becomes a Fascist State

Editors Opinion:

Ontario can no longer be regarded as a province of Canada.  Over the years it has been slowly guided by the will of NWO (New World Order/UN) elite to what it has become today – One more Fascist State of the NWO.

The GEA (green energy act) is a perfect example.

Under the guise of “green energy” the public has been conned into giving up their rights and are now being forced to accept corporate rule. It was CanWEA (Canadian Wind Energy Association) and the NGO’s (Non Governmental Organizations) that came up with the idea of the GEA not the government. The purpose of the GEA  is to remove the democratic rights of “the people” and give those rights to the corporations.

When the govt. gives  corporations the right to write the rules and refuses to listen to the concerns of the people – we have entered into a state of Fascism.

“Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merger of state and corporate power” – Benito Mussolini

“…somebody has to take governments’ place, and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it.” – David Rockefeller – Newsweek International, Feb 1 1999.

The GEA goes further – It now gives the govt. the legal right to enter your home under the guise of saving the environment. If you refuse their inspectors entry they can get a court order and if you still refuse to comply you will be fined and possibly jailed.

Ontario becomes a Fascist State the day the GEA is enacted

Read the Green Agenda and Cloak of Green on page bar.

Global Warming the Big LIE!

Network

Green Energy Police

Ontario’s war on carbon

Loss of local control

Ontario’s war on carbon

Al Gore – Madman? or Communist?

Beware! The Green Shirts Are Here

Elitism & Depopulation lurking behin

Mind Maps – A Form of Child Porn?

The New World Order – Explained

Man is the Enemy!

Global Warming Crisis?

Hundreds protest Global Warming

Pic was found at Asia Academy

Words From Environmental Leaders

Editor: Understand the true desires of the leaders of the environmental movement.

Their hatred of humanity is amazing

They hate Christianity

They hate the way you live

They hate you

Their words not mine