In 2003 and again in 2004 Senator Inhofe made speeches on the floor of the Senate attempting to reveal the bad science and exploitation of the environment movement. I am not sure why this alarmism is so lucrative and why people would rather get led to slaughter from this movement as opposed to the coal industry, where without it we would have no electricity not even estimating the countless job losses. There wouldn’t be any electricity to power those “green” batteries. Instead of getting electricity in exchange for the billions of dollars spent, people on board with the green movement get an ideology and nothing else for the billions they rake in. Even living in caves would be considered raping the environment. What would we burn to keep warm and cook our food? There would still be waste and what about all those holes? It’s easy to lose perspective when you get caught up in emotion, especially when you’re being manipulated.

After reading Senator Inhofe’s speech January 4, 2005, I decided every thing he said is still pertinent today and couldn’t have said it any better so here is a major portion of the speech:

“As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, “much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science.” I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” a statement that, to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations. I also pointed out, in a lengthy committee report, that those same environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising purposes, raking in millions of dollars, even using federal taxpayer dollars to finance their campaigns. For these groups, the issue of catastrophic global warming is not just a favored fundraising tool. In truth, it’s more fundamental than that. Put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith. Therefore contending that its central tenets are flawed is, to them, heresy of the most despicable kind. Furthermore, scientists who challenge its tenets are attacked, sometimes personally, for blindly ignoring the so-called “scientific consensus.” But that’s not all: because of their skeptical views, they are contemptuously dismissed for being “out of the mainstream.” This is, it seems to me, highly ironic: aren’t scientists supposed to be non-conforming and question consensus? Nevertheless, it’s not hard to read between the lines: “skeptic” and “out of the mainstream” are thinly veiled code phrases, meaning anyone who doubts alarmist orthodoxy is, in short, a quack.”

I have insisted all along that the climate change debate should be based on fundamental principles of science, not religion. Ultimately, I hope, it will be decided by hard facts and data-and by serious scientists committed to the principles of sound science. Instead of censoring skeptical viewpoints, as my alarmist friends favor, these scientists must be heard, and I will do my part to make sure that they are heard.

Since my detailed climate change speech in 2003, the so-called “skeptics” continue to speak out. What they are saying, and what they are showing, is devastating to the alarmists. They have amassed additional scientific evidence convincingly refuting the alarmists’ most cherished assumptions and beliefs. New evidence has emerged that further undermines their conclusions, most notably those of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-one of the major pillars of authority cited by extremists and climate alarmists.

This evidence has come to light in very interesting times. Just last month, the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP-10) to the Framework Convention on Climate Change convened in Buenos Aires to discuss Kyoto’s implementation and measures to pursue beyond Kyoto. As some of my colleagues know, Kyoto goes into effect on February 16th. I think, with the exception of Russia, an exception that I will explain later, the nations that ratified Kyoto and agreed to submit to its mandates are making a very serious mistake.

In addition, last month, popular author Dr. Michael Crichton, who has questioned the wisdom of those who trumpet a “scientific consensus,” released a new book called “State of Fear,” which is premised on the global warming debate. I’m happy to report that Dr. Crichton’s new book reached #3 on the New York Times bestseller list.

I highly recommend the book to all of my colleagues. Dr. Crichton, a medical doctor and scientist, very cleverly weaves a compelling presentation of the scientific facts of climate change-with ample footnotes and documentation throughout-into a gripping plot. From what I can gather, Dr. Crichton’s book is designed to bring some sanity to the global warming debate. In the “Author’s Message” at the end of the book, he refreshingly states what scientists have suspected for years: “We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a 400 year cold spell known as the Little Ice Age.” Dr. Crichton states that, “Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon,” and, “Nobody knows how much of the present trend might be man-made.” And for those who see impending disaster in the coming century, Dr. Crichton urges calm: “I suspect that people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume more energy, have a smaller global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don’t think we have to worry about them.”


Such efforts fly in the face of compelling new scientific evidence that makes a mockery of these lawsuits. By now, most everyone familiar with the climate change debate knows about the hockey stick graph, constructed by Dr. Michael Mann and colleagues, which shows that temperature in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th Century. The hockey-stick graph was featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, published in 2001. The conclusion inferred from the hockey stick is that industrialization, which spawned widespread use of fossil fuels, is causing the planet to warm. I spent considerable time examining this work in my 2003 speech. Because Mann effectively erased the well-known phenomena of the Medieval Warming Period-when, by the way, it was warmer than it is today-and the Little Ice Age, I didn’t find it very credible. I find it even less credible now.

But don’t take my word for it. Just ask Dr. Hans von Storch, a noted German climate researcher, who, along with colleagues, published a devastating finding in the Sept. 30, 2004 issue of the journal Science. As the authors wrote: “We were able to show in a publication in Science that this [hockey stick] graph contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: Rubbish.”

Dr. von Storch and colleagues discovered that the Mann hockey stick had severely underestimated past climate variability. In a commentary on Dr. von Storch’s paper, T. J. Osborn and K. R. Briffa, prominent paleo-climatologists from the University of East Anglia, stressed the importance of the findings. As they wrote, “The message of the study by von Storch et al. is that existing reconstructions of the NH [northern hemisphere] temperature of recent centuries may systematically underestimate the true centennial variability of climate” and, “If the true natural variability of NH [northern hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than is currently accepted, the extent to which recent warming can be viewed as ‘unusual’ would need to be reassessed.” In other words, in obliterating the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, Mann’s hockey stick just doesn’t pass muster.

Dr. von Storch is one of many critics of Michael Mann’s hockey stick. To recount just one example, three geophysicists from the University of Utah, in the April 7, 2004 edition of Geophysical Research Letters, concluded that Mann’s methods used to create his temperature reconstruction were deeply flawed. In fact, their judgment is harsher than that. As they wrote, Mann’s results are “based on using end points in computing changes in an oscillating series” and are ” just bad science.” I repeat: “just bad science.”


Despite this evidence, alarmism is alive and well. [Chart #2] As you can see behind me, the Washington Post today ran an editorial cartoon that actually blames the Sumatra tsunami on global warming. Are we to believe now that global warming is causing earthquakes? The tsunami, of course, was caused by an earthquake off Sumatra’s coast, deep beneath the sea floor, completely disconnected from whatever the climate was doing at the surface. Regrettably, the tsunami-warming connection is yet another facet of the “State of Fear” alarmists have concocted. As Terence Corcoran of Canada’s Financial Post wrote, “The urge to capitalize on the horror in Asia is just too great for some to resist if it might help their cause…Green Web sites are already filling up with references to tsunami risks associated with global warming.”

To address this, let’s ask some simple questions: Is global warming causing more extreme weather events of greater intensity, and is it causing sea levels to rise? The answer to both is an emphatic ‘no’. [Chart #3] Just look at this chart behind me. It’s titled “Climate Related Disasters in Asia: 1900 to 1990s.” What does it show? It shows the number of such disasters in Asia, and the deaths attributed to them, declining fairly sharply over the last 30 years.

Or let’s take hurricanes. Alarmists linked last year’s hurricanes that devastated parts of Florida to global warming. Nonsense. Credible meteorologists quickly dismissed such claims. Hugh Willoughby, senior scientist at the International Hurricane Research Center of Florida International University stated plainly: “This isn’t a global-warming sort of thing…. It’s a natural cycle.” A team led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Dr. Christopher Landsea concluded that the relationship of global temperatures to the number of intense land-falling hurricanes is either non-existent or very weak. In this chart [chart #4], you can see that the overall number of hurricanes and the number of the strongest hurricanes fluctuated greatly during the last century, with a great number in the 1940s. In fact, through the last decade, the intensity of these storms has declined somewhat.

What about sea level rise? Alarmists have claimed for years that sea level, because of anthropogenic warming, is rising, with ominous consequences. Based on modeling, the IPCC estimates that sea level will rise 1.8 millimeters annually, or about one-fourteenth of an inch.

[Chart #5] But in a study published this year in Global and Planetary Change, Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Sweden found that sea level rise hysteria is overblown. In his study, which relied not only on observational records, but also on satellites, he concluded: “There is a total absence of any recent ‘acceleration in sea level rise’ as often claimed by IPCC and related groups.” Yet we still hear of a future world overwhelmed by floods due to global warming. Such claims are completely out of touch with science. As Sweden’s Morner puts it, “there is no fear of massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.”


What I have outlined today won’t appear in the New York Times. Instead you’ll read much about “consensus” and Kyoto and hand wringing by its editorial writers that unrestricted carbon dioxide emissions from the United States are harming the planet. You’ll read nothing, of course, about how Kyoto-like policies harm Americans, especially the poor and minorities, causing higher energy prices, reduced economic growth, and fewer jobs. After all, that is the real purpose behind Kyoto, as Margot Wallstrom, the EU’s environment minister, said in a revealing moment of candor. To her, Kyoto is about “leveling the playing field” for businesses worldwide-in other words, we can’t compete, so let’s use a feel-good treaty, based on shoddy science, fear, and alarmism, and which will have no perceptible impact on the environment (Chart #6), to restrict America’s economic growth and prosperity. Unfortunately for Ms. Wallstrom and Kyoto’s staunchest advocates, America was wise to the scheme, and it has rejected Kyoto and similar policies convincingly. Whatever Kyoto is about-to some, such as French President Jacques Chirac, it’s about forming “an authentic global governance”-it’s the wrong policy and it won’t work, as many participants in Buenos Aires grudgingly conceded.

Despite the bias, omissions, and distortions by the media and extremist groups, the real story about global warming is being told, and, judging by the welcome success of Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear,” it’s now being told to the American public.

This is the 2007 Senate report that lists some highlights of accomplished Scientists that refute the “Global Warming” alarmism. The report mentions non believer scientists and some tacts they’ve been subjected to like harassment, files deleted from the cop15 manual or not getting other opportunities to publish their papers. The scientists that support AGW climate scare have been intimidating the ones that are against the AGW climate scare and don’t like coming forward.


Debunking the media “consensus” about global warming. Here’s what Senator Inhofe from the US Senate Committee On Environment & Public Works says about that;

“While it may appear to the casual observer that scientists promoting climate fears are in the majority, the evidence continues to reveal this is an illusion. Climate skeptics — the emerging silent majority of scientists — receive much smaller shares of university research funds, foundation funds and government grants and they are not plugged into the well-heeled environmental special interest lobby.” Read the full report.

What was the wild frenzy really about if 400 Scientists came forward to go on the record against AGW in 2007 (imagine the numbers in 2010). I wasn’t the only one smelling something fishy in Denmark.

“The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of “An Inconvenient Truth” travelled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI).  MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste.  Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.”

“Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day,” wrote EIR.  “First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm’s registered lobbyist, and Gore’s former top Senate aide.”

While Bush had nothing to gain from an emerging environmental fervor, Obama was in the thick of startup oganizations with billions to gain. There’s a history in America that’s littered with attempts to hijack our Democratic Republic to pave the way for socialism. For a quick spread the wealth (socialist) scenario; You have two sons, one is not as socially productive. This son doesn’t assert himself in studying for school or spend time looking for a job. The other son gets better grades and has secured himself a part-time job. You, as the parent compensates for the inequalities by taking the one son’s wages and splitting it between them both. What would eventually happen, would both son’s at some point equally give up doing for themselves? Of course they would, for two entirely different reasons but with the same results.

The most convincing way for a young American to denounce socialism is by telling them that there are other students in his/her class that can’t seem to get their GPA as high so his/her grades are going to be divided equally amongst the class.

Political high stake games are apparent, our Republic stands in the balance. The president follows a year long trillions spending spree like a young adult with an inherited new found wealth, but raises the spending baseline then freezes it there for three years. And we foolishly feel he did something good. In 2009 the EPA’s budget was raised 35% and the spending freeze locks it in for the next three years. According to a fantastically learned gentleman and Pulitzer prize recipient, Charles Krauthammer discusses in his article “The Environmental Shakedown” that the hijacking into socialism attempt in 1970 with OPEC,  and the U.N. calling it a “New International Economic Order.” The difference between that attempt and the current is it’s now proposed as a sacred service of environmentalism. Here’s what he writes about the EPA;

“Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means over a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life”

Obama’s involvement in the Chicago Climate Exchange – by A War of Illusions- the comments following this article are particularly interesting and revealing.

Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange—the rest of the story

Fox News Report re: Obama funding carbon program the third paragraph down gives extra information to this story. 

This excerpt is straight from CCX’s press release;

Cap and Trade Is Real
“You may be surprised to know that the biggest cap and trade market in the world is here in the United States and in Chicago,” Dr. Richard Sandor told an audience at the Gabelli Cap and Trade Symposium in New York in June. He was referring to the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which launched trading operations in 2003 with 13 charter members including American Electric Power, DuPont, Ford Motor Company, and International Paper. That number has since grown to more than 300 members in several different categories from all sectors and offset projects worldwide.”
You can access the press release on CCX’s website below. Investment Advisor:
The Green Advisor: Cleaner Air and Cash

More About Barack Obama involvement
Barack Obama was a member of the board of the Chicago Climate Exchange from 1998 to 2001.

A string of people related to global warming for the purpose of enviroprofiteering, scroll down to the second section starting at NJ Gov. Jon Corzine, Hot Air, Obama and You

Philosophy of Richard Sandor
A participant in a meeting between founder Richard Sandor and 40 potential investors described Sandor’s philosophy as follows:

“Richard Sandor believes that the capital markets can solve global warming and make money doing it. He explained his theory on wealth creation, which grew out of the economic situation in the 1960’s. He said that fifty years ago, wealth was concentrated in the manufacturing industry. He explained that the ‘70’s were about commodities and then in the 80’s the market moved into the commoditization of financial products such as interest rates and derivatives. In the 90’s, he said, the commodities of information like Google and Yahoo ruled. What does he say about the 21st century? He believes that wealth will be created in the commoditization of air and water.”
This information can be read on SourceWatch or just google – obama, chicago climate exchange

An Interview with Sandor at Trading

I connect the dots like this, they must have thought themselves brilliant, chuckling about the massive opportunity to make themselves and others ugly rich by using the very air we breath as a commodity. The air and all the greenhouse gases therein. As Chicago politics usually goes, there are probably many groups of people set up to be onboard with this windfall. And the brilliance doesn’t stop there, the UN and the World Bank are all set up to operate this new cash cow. Once set up and operating all over the world, how easy would it then be for an unsuspecting bomb gets dropped, just a little too late but lo and behold the innocuous carbon credits suddenly turns into world currency?

If only they can just get that cap-and-trade bill passed through the Senate.

Other links that support my “Connected Dots” that AGW is simply a political money-making scam used to further a massive power grab for an imperialistic world central bank and lead to a one world government.

There is some duplication of content, each article does contain unique information.

Ron Paul Warns of Secret Plans

Obama’s One World Government – by Chuck Norris

Copenhagen: a step closer to a one world government? – by James Delingpole Revealing Quotes From Those Who Know – Note: make sure to read the last paragraph.

U.N. Using Climate to Push One World Government Reforms

Government Wants to Control Your Thermostats

This is an in-depth article – The Financial New Order: Towards a Global Currency and World Government – by Andrew Gavin Marshall

Warning: If you don’t concede to the two-part systematic destruction of American sovereignty, The Part A. –  carefully crafted global warming alarm, working in conjunction with Part B. –  breaking the economic back of America, you will fail to cry out for the government to save us. First they try the power of persuasion, then the persuasion of power by forcing the hand of a power struggle means continuation with both parts by newly invented environmental threats and continually crippling industry by imposing an endless succession of regulations, further vilification of large corporations that sustain us because government cannot overtly take control of those unless they fall into hardship as with the banks, auto industry etc. At the same time we become weaker by their raising our costs into poverty through taxation and job losses, until eventually we have no choice but to become dependent on government for all our needs and remain at their mercy.

Sure there are those in positions of  power and authority that in good conscience speak out against the mishandling and corrupt dealings of a government gone bad, there’s a whole strategy in place to deal with those, name calling, belittling, denying, minimizing, covering up, stated unfounded or cynical. Ask any woman who tries to confront an abusive husband, she gets anything and everything that points to her being the problem. All the people like me are simply dubbed crazy, wacko or conspiracy theorists and written off. This all looks like organized, white collar crime from my perspective.


Make no mistake, the only way to fight and win is to take action early in the game. We all fight together or we all lose together, there is no benefit to wish you had paid more attention when all is already lost. 

I’ll be adding more info to this post as I uncover information.