Posts Tagged ‘anthropogenic global warming’

Global warming scam

August 31, 2011

This Telegraph blog post was pointed out by poster “AuWolf” on the Voy forum to whom I owe a hat tip. As I scanned the forum in the wee hours of the morning, I resolved to wait till breakfast to go the The Telegraph’s web site to read the entirety of the post. Nevertheless, scanning the Telegraph’s web site for items related to “global warming” or “warming” or “climate” did not yield the item in question.

Is that a coincidence? 

[…] This is exactly what has happened with the latest revelations from CERN over its landmark CLOUD experiment, whose significance Lawrence Solomon explains here:

“The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.””

There are undoubtedly vast numbers of individuals and corporations that due to negligence and or deliberate criminal behavior pollute and devastate the environment. I am all for throwing the book at these individuals and corporations.

But, from there to agreeing that humanity is causing climate change is a stretch. Admitting so is tantamount to admitting that we have the ability to alter the trajectory of earth in space or that we could cap volcanoes sealed shut. In other words, believing in anthropogenic global warming is similar to the geo centrism and the belief in the centrality of man prevalent during the dark ages.

Be that as it may. After natural phenomena, the single greatest contributor of noxious gases to the atmosphere is agriculture and all its inherent activities. Gaseous emissions from live stock are literally chocking us. This is not me saying it, it is official UN research. That being the case, one would have thought that the best remedy for too much noxious gases in the atmosphere would be a bout of diminished consumption… particularly in the West… no? So, why not embrace a bout of deflation… come on Bernanke… let’s do something for the earth… and you tree huggers around the world… get with the program… we need a new monetary system that’s how you can achieve your goals…


Magnetic polar shift causing massive global superstorms

February 13, 2011

Anthropogenic global warming and climate change… HA! Four hundred years since the Renaissance and the emergence of the scientific method and man’s unwavering belief that we are the center of the universe has yet to fade from our collective narcissistic minds. The really sad thing is that politicians know the sheeple all too well and they play us like fiddles to enrich themselves and their cronies like Obama and Gore tried to very recently –

The truth of course is that we are mere men and the thought that our puny actions might influence or alter universal cycles is nothing but an exercise in pathological delusion.

NASA has been warning about it…scientific papers have been written about it…geologists have seen its traces in rock strata and ice core samples…

Now “it” is here: an unstoppable magnetic pole shift that has sped up and is causing life-threatening havoc with the world’s weather.

Forget about global warming—man-made or natural—what drives planetary weather patterns is the climate and what drives the climate is the sun’s magnetosphere and its electromagnetic interaction with a planet’s own magnetic field.”

The shifting of the magnetic pole is also affecting our daily lives:

And here is something interesting. For millennia the only fixed point in man’s existence has been the certainty that the sun always rises and follows regular and predictable cycles…. till this year that is….

Can the shifting of the magnetic pole have something to do with this?

I was at a dinner last night… (climate change)

December 26, 2009

I’m not much of a socialite and only go out occasionally. A dear friend invited me to Christmas dinner and I decided to go knowing that the company would not be your run of the mill crowd. True to form, guests were and eclectic group of people with unusual backgrounds. All were well read and all were recognized and prominent exponents of their professions in their chosen fields of activity and all had fascinating life experiences to share making for rewarding conversation.

Anxious to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, the point at which we were well into our dinners, in a moment when the conversation seemed to taper off, I suddenly asked whom amongst them had bought the Global Warming rhetoric.

Though the company was exceptionally friendly and willing to engage in polite arguments, the wicked use of the word “bought” in asking my question had the predictable effect to light up all their intellectual warning lights. You could almost hear the blood rushing up from the main area of activity at that moment (the stomach) en route to the brain as the little guys manning their respective cerebral control rooms suddenly stirred from their festivity induced lull to make a panicked appeal for fuel to counter a situation that may require prodigious amounts of arguing power.

And so it was that passions were aroused. Because GW is now more of an emotional issue than a rational and objective one.

All could agree that climate had changed. Firs- hand accounts of depleted fish stocks, damaged coral reefs and changed weather patterns came forth thick and fast.

Finally, someone offered the timeless and misguided argument that sets forth that regardless of whether GW is true or not, we have nothing to lose by implementing legislation aimed at reducing noxious gases.

The company being polite, guests felt the conversation may take a turn for the worst so it was allowed to tail off.

So here is the moral of the story from my point of view.

The final argument reminded me of that annoying email that used to circulate persistently some years ago that was purportedly sent by Bill Gates. The email stated that Microsoft was conducting a secret experiment and that Bill Gates himself would give US$5000 to anyone that would forward the email to all their contact list. Most recipients of the email duly forwarded it to friends and colleagues attaching a message that said: “You never know. It might be true. Anyway we have nothing to lose by forwarding it”.

Of course we all had something to lose by anyone forwarding what was clearly and blatantly a scam to collect email addresses that went to enrich the databases of spammers and hackers. All hackers wanted, was a juicy address of someone in a bank or in a ministry or a credit card company in order to try to plant trojans and viruses.

Similarly with Climate Change, we stand to lose a great deal by allowing ourselves to be roped in by a doctrine that appeals to our sense of moral rectitude but does not stand up to rationalization, just because it is perceived that, anyway, we have nothing to lose by going along with it.

Of course we want clean air, clean cities, clean seas and prosperous forests and coral reefs. It would be nice. But in order to achieve that, we must put the horse before the cart. CC legislation does not even contemplate a horse. It is purely a gravy cart meant to be pushed by you and me.

If you follow this blog, you know my pet peeve is inflation. Rather, my pet peeve is the arbitrary imposition of an unchecked fiat monetary system that leads necessarily and inevitably to an accelerating inflationary dynamic.

Most people have no idea what fiat money is. Most people therefore cannot make the necessary connections that would allow them to realize that CC is a boondoggle. And as boondoggles go, this one is a biggie.

But before we get into that, lets explore a few of the inconsistencies in the CC doctrine. First and foremost, it is established fact that climate changes. It has always been so and there is absolutely no reason why it should not be so now. The fact that man should think that his actions have any bearing on climate is reminiscent of the Geocentrism that prevailed during the dark ages; man is the center of the universe and everything revolves around us. The mere thought that man could alter climate is equivalent to saying that we are capable of altering tides (King Canute anyone?) or, more appropriately, the trajectory of earth in space.

Then there are the laws of thermodynamics one of which states that nothing is created and nothing is destroyed but everything is transformed. So, we know that, for example, oceans are great sinks of CO2 and that during warming they release the gas and that they absorb it during cooling. What we don’t know is whether the oceans are releasing CO2 because the climate is warming or whether the climate is warming because the oceans are releasing CO2. Classic chicken and egg situation.

Then there is CO2. As far as I know, CO2 is plant food. Plants feed on CO2 so technically, more CO2 should be a bonanza for our forests and jungles… and our gardens.

Then there is the fact that from a millenarian point of view, there is nothing particularly unusual going on with current temperatures or with the depletion of glaciers in certain places and their extension in other places. For more information on these subjects you can look up “Debunking AGW” on this blog. Here is also another piece of interesting research:

Then there is the fact that the single greatest contributor of noxious gases to the atmosphere is the agricultural sector and, in particular, the live stock sector with its ancillary activities. This is actually very important to keep in mind for the purposes of this essay.

Now, in order to understand where I am coming from, you must understand the logic of fiat money and you should read the introduction under “Aims and rationale” on this blog. It is lengthy and probably lacking but should be a good primer for further reading. In the meantime, here is a crash course.

By deliberately and arbitrarily imposing a fiat monetary system, government makes the implicit choice to push inflation faster than underlying economic activity. Inflation is a dynamic that is exponential in nature thus it is limited mathematically. As an exponential dynamic, inflation gradually leads to commercial and industrial overcapacity thus it compresses in time the production and consumption cycles thus it boosts GDP nominally (but not necessarily intrinsically). But accelerating inflation fosters accelerating consumption thus the depletion of natural resources (i.e. agriculture and fish stocks) thus leading to aberrations in the economy and politics (subsidies and protection of industries). As an exponential dynamic, it follows that inflation is limited mathematically thus as the “beneficial” effects of inflation tail off (GDP boosting), government has a vested interest in maintaining a positive inflationary trajectory by any means possible. Thus the arbitrary use of fiat money must inevitably and necessarily lead to government becoming the largest actor in the economy.

As the largest actor in the economy, it follows that government has a vested interest in maintaining a positive inflationary trajectory regardless of any moral or fiduciary obligations as may be held as self evident. That is, once past the peak of the perceived “beneficial” effects of inflation, inflation becomes vital to the existence of government therefore it becomes a goal unto itself.

The logic of a fiat monetary system dictates that in order to survive, the system must systematically assimilate new markets and new currencies: i.e. abrogation of Bretton Woods in 1971 and adoption of the US$ as reserve currency, creation of the Euro, globalization. The other necessary precondition of fiat money is the total disregard for intrinsic value. Thus today globally we finally have a USDollar based, floating exchange rate, monetary system.

The rationale of Climate Change legislation therefore, inscribes itself in the fiat monetary logic. That is; at a time when the traditional tools used by government to induce inflation are failing, it becomes necessary to push through to even greater lengths the amalgamation of executive power by simultaneously dismantling layers of democratic mechanisms deemed to hinder the pursuit of what is perceived as legitimate raison d’etat (i.e. Lisbon Treaty and Patriot Acts). At the same time, due to a perception that historic strategies have served well to induce inflation, Climate Change is proposed as a way to impose still more layers of payments and disbursements aimed at boosting the velocity of circulation of the currency. That is because, as is evident in the graph below, despite the gargantuan sums that Western governments have shoveled into the economy in the past 18 months, the new currency has lost its traditional multiplier effect as contemplated by Keynesian theory:

I am all for a clean environment and I would be a ferocious enforcer of legislation that is already existing in order to throw the book at anyone that, willingly or by negligence, pollutes the environment. But from there to supporting what is blatantly Fascist legislation that steam-rolls a bunch of democratic mechanisms in a wasteful and self serving attempt at the perpetuation and enlargement of government… then, no, I am not game.

Now that you have an initial grasp of our monetary system, I leave you with a last thought:

Knowing what the characteristics of inflation are, does it not seem contradictory that government should at once plead for the environment whilst simultaneously trying to kick start the inflationary dynamic to levels approximating the average of the last ten years?

If anyone should really want to do anything about the environment and the devastation of our resources, we should be looking at taking our governments to task on the monetary system. Excess consumption is not good for the environment. The monetary system is the one single construct we should revise.

Geithner: We will not have a second wave of financial crisis…

December 24, 2009

Typically, something is not true till official government sources deny it…

And of course, the opposite is also true: i.e. when government peddles a concept as being true it typically is not (anyone for global warming? Which, by the way, is now conveniently termed climate change).

Lets see how this prediction pans out.

More catching up by the main stream press

November 1, 2009

The real climate change catastrophe

Is the main stream press suddenly getting a wake-up call?

Ian Plimer Prof Earth Science

October 30, 2009

Author of the book: Heaven and Earth

Howard Hayden’s letter to the EPA via Lew Rockwell (Global Warming)

October 30, 2009

October 29, 2009

Physicist Howard Hayden’s One-Letter Disproof of Global Warming Claims

Posted by Stephan Kinsella on October 29, 2009 11:47 AM

Physicist Howard Hayden, a staunch advocate of sound energy policy, sent me a copy of his letter to the EPA about global warming. The text is also appended below, with permission.

As noted in my post Access to Energy, Hayden helped the late, great Petr Beckmann found the dissident physics journal Galilean Electrodynamics (brochures and further Beckmann info here; further dissident physics links). Hayden later began to publish his own pro-energy newsletter, The Energy Advocate, following in the footsteps of Beckmann’s own journal Access to Energy.

I love Hayden’s email sign-off, “People will do anything to save the world … except take a course in science.”

Here’s the letter:


Howard C. Hayden
785 S. McCoy Drive
Pueblo West, CO 81007

October 27, 2009

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson:

I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called “Endangerment Finding.”

It has been often said that the “science is settled” on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.

The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.

Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.

We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.

Let me next address the horror story that we are approaching (or have passed) a “tipping point.” Anybody who has worked with amplifiers knows about tipping points. The output “goes to the rail.” Not only that, but it stays there. That’s the official worry coming from the likes of James Hansen (of NASA­GISS) and Al Gore.

But therein lies the proof that we are nowhere near a tipping point. The earth, it seems, has seen times when the CO2 concentration was up to 8,000 ppm, and that did not lead to a tipping point. If it did, we would not be here talking about it. In fact, seen on the long scale, the CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials (ca. 200 ppm) and interglacials (ca. 300-400 ppm) is lower than it has been for the last 300 million years.

Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming.

(A) CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind. The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution. Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply assume that it would be the “pre-industrial” value.

  • The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.

(B) The first principle of causality is that the cause has to come before the effect. The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?

Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is increasing. But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased?

  • A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.
  • The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. But a quick trip to the museum can make that case in spades. Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.
  • CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition.
  • A warmer world begets more precipitation.
  • All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms.
  • The melting point of ice is 0 ºC in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else. The highest recorded temperature at the South Pole is –14 ºC, and the lowest is –117 ºC. How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?

Consider the change in vocabulary that has occurred. The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, that’s climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change.

In a way, we have been here before. Lord Kelvin “proved” that the earth could not possibly be as old as the geologists said. He “proved” it using the conservation of energy. What he didn’t know was that nuclear energy, not gravitation, provides the internal heat of the sun and the earth.

Similarly, the global-warming alarmists have “proved” that CO2 causes global warming.

Except when it doesn’t.

To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.

Best Regards,

Howard C. Hayden
Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn

RedditDigg thisStumble ItShout It • <!– <a href=””>Share on Facebook • –> <!– <a href=””>Save to • –> Add to MixxDiscuss on Newsvine
« Previous: Obama at Dover AFB War-Dead Ceremonies | LRC Home | LRC Blog | Next: The Jigsaw Killer Is Pro-Obamacare »

Deconstructing Global Warming doctrine

October 20, 2009

Lord Monckton deconstructing Global Warming doctrine

And this is the powerpoint presentation that goes with the video above

Global warming – HA!!!!!

October 11, 2009

I will say this. If you’ve read any of my posts on this blog you may wonder how, if global warming is a hoax, is it that governments might want to pass regulation to ostensibly counter the effects of global warming?

The answer to that question is that it is a vested interest of government to pass any and all regulation for whatever reason so as to introduce still more layers of expenditure in an effort to keep money circulating.

In an unchecked fiat monetary system, inflation gradually becomes the ultimate and only goal for the continued survival of the state (the political state i.e. government as opposed to the state as represented by you and me – in other words Fascism raises its ugly head).

But, as I state in most of my essays, inflation has a mathematical limit so that towards the end of the inflationary dynamic, government has a vested interest in tolerating and/or participating in activities that become progressively more illegal and criminal.

We are being set up for a war of global proportions and we are walking into it willingly.

Global warming or global freezing: is the ice really melting?

September 25, 2009

Global Warming or Global Freezing:
is the ice really melting?

author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order
by F. William Engdahl

September 24, 2009

President Obama just made a melodramatic appeal at the United Nations for global measures to dramatically curb what he called “the climate threat,” current euphemism for what is more popularly known as Global Warming, the theory that man-made CO2 emissions from cars, coal plants and other man-made sources are causing the earth to warm to the point the polar icecaps are irreversibly melting and threatening to flood a quarter or more of the earth’s surface. There’s only one thing wrong with Mr. Obama’s dramatic scenario: it is scientifically utterly wrong. Since 2007 the polar icecaps have been growing not melting and the earth has been cooling, not warming.

If the fear of death from a fictitious Swine Flu were not enough, the scare stories on world media such as BBC or CNN, showing melting icebergs are dramatic enough to cause one sleepless nights. The Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon even made a recent appeal while standing on an Arctic ice-flow, claiming that man-made CO2 emissions were causing “100 billion tons” of polar ice to melt each year, so that in 30 years the Arctic would be “ice-free”. One organization, the WWF, claimed that the Arctic ice was melting so fast that in eighty years sea-levels would rise by 1.2 meters, creating “floods affecting a quarter of the world.” Wow! That’s scary. Goodbye Hamburg, New York, Amsterdam…
The publicity stunt of Ban Ki-Moon was carefully orchestrated. It was not said that his ship could only come within 700 miles of the North Pole owing to frozen ice. Nor that he made his stunt in the summer when Arctic ice always melts before refreezing beginning September.

The reality about Arctic ice is quite different. Although some 10 million square kilometres of sea-ice melts each summer, each September the Arctic starts to freeze again. The extent of the ice now is 500,000 sq km greater than it was this same time last year – which was, in turn, 500,000 sq km more than in September 2007, the lowest point recently recorded (see Cryosphere Today of the University of Illinois, ).

By next April, after months of darkness, it will be back up to 14 million sq km or likely more. As British science writer Christopher Booker remarks, “even if all that sea-ice were to melt, this would no more raise sea-levels than a cube of ice melting in a gin and tonic increases the volume of liquid in the glass.”

Sunbeams from cucumbers?

The current global warming propaganda scare is being hyped by politicians and special interests such as Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street financial firms that stand to reap billions trading new carbon credit financial futures. They are making an all-out effort to scare the world into a deal at the December Copenhagen Global Warming summit, the successor to the Kyoto agreement on CO2 emission reduction. It’s been estimated that the Global Warming bill supported by Barack Obama and his Wall Street patrons, passed by the House of Representatives but not by the more conservative US Senate, would cost US taxpayers some $10 trillion.

In the UK, where Prime Minister Gordon Brown is fully on the global warming bandwagon, the BBC, the Royal Society are proposing wild schemes for “climate engineering,” including putting up mirrors in space to keep out the sun’s rays, or lining the highways with artificial trees to suck CO2 out of the air, to be taken away and buried in holes in the ground. Perhaps it would provide make-work for a few thousand Britons unemployed by the ravages of the recent financial collapse, but it would do nothing else than waste taxpayer money already stretched to the limits in bank bailouts. The entire farce has been compared to satirist Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver who meets a fictional character trying to extract sunbeams from cucumbers.

A major new study published in the respected Journal of Geophysical Research of the American Geophysical Union, Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, by scientists
J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas of the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland in New Zealand and R.M. Carter (, confirms that over the past fifty years, since 1950, fully 81% of tropical climate change can be linked to the Pacific weather phenomenon known as El Nino. And the remaining 19% they linked to increased solar radiation. No man made emissions played a role.

El Ninos, termed by scientists El Nino Southern Oscillations or ENSOs, are believed by climatologists and astrophysicists to be related to eruptions in solar activity which occur periodically.
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt of Canada’s Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, says ENSO is the “strongest source of natural variability in the global climate system. During the severe ENSO event 1982/1983, when the sea surface off Peru warmed by more than 7° C, it was discovered that there are strong links to weather in other regions as, for instance, floods in California and intensified drought in Africa.”

Landscheidt adds, “El Niño and La Niña are subjected to external forcing by the sun’s varying activity to such a degree that it explains nearly all of ENSO’s irregularities and makes long-range forecasts beyond the 1-year limit possible. This is no mere theory. My forecasts of the last two El Niños turned out correct and that of the last one was made more than two years ahead of the event…” (Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña, in Even James Hansen, one of the outspoken protagonists of the Global Warming idea admits, “The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change…The natural forcing due to solar irradiance changes may play a larger role in long-term climate change than inferred from comparisons with general circulation models alone.”

El Ninos are linked to floods, droughts and other weather disturbances in many regions of the world. In the Atlantic Ocean, effects lag behind those in the Pacific by 12 to 18 months. They tend to occur every three to eight years. La Ninas are the associated cooling phase of the Pacific Ocean cycles.
According to the US National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration, in North America, El Niño creates warmer-than-average winters in the upper Midwest states and the Northeast. California and the southwestern US become significantly wetter, while the northern Gulf of Mexico states and northeast Mexico are wetter and cooler than average during the El Niño phase of the oscillation. In Asia and parts of Australia El Nino causes drier conditions, increasing bush fires.

This sounds remarkably like what the Global Warming scare chorus claims is the result of manmade CI2 emissions or as they now slyly term it, “climate change.”

Warmer 1000 years ago?

In Sweden a new study (, in  published by Haakan Grudd of the University of Stockholm’s Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology confirms that the Arctic today is not warmer than in previous historical periods centuries ago before coal power plants or automobiles. Grudd’s study concludes that “The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around a.d. 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on a.d. 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data.” (H. Grudd, Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad  500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers, Climate Dynamics, Volume 31, Numbers 7-8 / December, 2008, in.) Put simply, the earth was warmer one thousand years ago than today. And there were no records of SUVs or coal plants belching CO2 into the atmosphere back then.

The only problem with these serious scientific studies is that mainstream media entirely ignores them, preferring dramatic scare story scenarios such as Barack Obama presented in his UN speech or the UN’s Ban Ki-Moon in his staged Arctic ice drama.

Strangely enough, none of the Global Warming proponents that I am aware of have tried to correlate ENSO activity with global temperature changes. Should we instead be proposing to outlaw El Ninos or forbid solar eruptions? It makes as much scientific sense as banning or capping CO2 emissions. Global Warming as a new religion is one thing, but we should be clear that the high priests are the same Gods of Money who brought us Peak Oil religion a few years ago and the current trillion dollar financial meltdown known as asset securitization.  The reality is that Global Warming like Peak Oil and other scares are but another attempt by powerful vested interests to convince the world to sacrifice that they remain in control of the events of this planet. It’s a thinly veiled attempt to misuse climate to argue for a new Malthusian reduction of living standards for the majority of the world while a tiny elite gains more power.

Copyright © 2009 F. William Engdahl
Editorial Archive

*F. William Engdahl is author of  Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation ( He also authored A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (Pluto Press). His newest book, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order (Third Millennium Press) is now in print and will be available by mid-June. He may be contacted over his website,

contact information

F. William Engdahl | Email | Website

The opinions of FSU contributors do not necessarily reflect those of Financial Sense.