Friday, May 13, 2011



May 8, 2011 by Infowars Ireland

If one looks selectively at global temperatures and compares recent decades with say the exceptionally cool period from around 1650 to 1700 (known as the ‘Maunder Minimum’ or ‘Little Ice Age’ when European rivers regularly froze in winter) then it is possible to be fooled into thinking we experienced exceptional global warming in the latter part of the 20th century. In fact, from an examination of the broader sweep of time it is clear that this is not the case. Moreover, in clear opposition to predictions from pro- ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (AGW) climate models, average global temperatures have been declining over the last decade, not increasing along with increased CO2 output as predicted.

There is in fact no evidence that previous warming trends were anything other than part of a natural cycle and there is no objective evidence that human activity and CO2 increase is causing catastrophic climate-change. AGW climate modellers have “lost” the data that allegedly backs up their claims and failed to present it for proper independent scientific scrutiny, they have heavily relied upon false readings from urban weather station thermometers sited next to air conditioners and the like, they have hid inconvenient data showing temperature declines and they have based famous ‘hockey-stick’ and other graphs they claim support their global-warming theories upon unrepresentative data from just one set of tree rings in Northern Russia! AGW theories are a sham and represent the biggest abuse of the scientific-process since the enlightenment[1].

They do however support a covert Neo-Malthusian Eugenicists’ agenda that is hell-bent on destroying western society by denying energy to industrial economies, massively reducing population levels and concentrating survivors in urban population centres as per ‘UN-Agenda-21′. Although much has been done to conceal this diabolical ‘New World Order’ agenda from ordinary people by the plutocrats planning the imminent global ‘scientific dictatorship’, evidence in the form of documented words from the conspirators themselves is in the public domain. One excellent source of such compelling evidence is ‘The Green Agenda’ Under such circumstances, it is interesting to note therefore that even individuals with a long track record of supporting environmental causes are increasingly warning against matters implicit in such a covert agenda. I draw your attention to just two: Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, and Joanne Nova, leading Australian Science Journalist.

Moore has repeatedly warned that post-Maunder warming is entirely a natural phenomenon that is not driven by human industrial activity – see the article ‘Greenpeace Founder Questions Man-Made Global Warming’ pasted below for example. Such is Moore’s concern over anti-industrial environmental Luddism, which has needlessly daemonised fossil fuels, that he is actively warning that we should not be fooled into abandoning Nuclear Power in the wake of the Fukushima incident – see for example the ”Greenie’ backing for uranium’ article pasted below.

Nova has run a climate-sceptic-science website and media campaign with global reach and is author of one of the world’s most-read climate change sceptic science/politics summaries entitled ‘The Skeptics Handbook’ and ‘Global Bullies Want Your Money’. Recently Nova has turned her attention to the diversion of money away from medical research and care for the sick towards global-warming pseudo-science and policy. Her article in ‘The Australian’ newspaper entitled ‘Wasting money on climate change betrays the sick’ is a must-read and is pasted below.

Representing the will of eugenicist plutocrat dictators in-waiting, Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme, for example, stated:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

If we do not wake up to the fact that environmental and energy issues are being systematically manipulated, inflamed and exaggerated by such twisted individuals then we will shortly be victims of deliberately-engineered food and energy famines. Global rioting will increase and will be used to justify international Martial Law and, ultimately, the globalists’ ‘scientific dictatorship’. The stakes could not possibly be higher. The freedom and survival of ordinary people everywhere is on the line.

THE BLAZE, January 20, 2011

Patrick Moore, co-founder of the environmental organization Greenpeace, isn’t too hot about global warming. Appearing on Fox Business Network with Stuart Varney on Thursday, he said global warming is a “natural phenomenon,” there’s no proof of man-made global warming, and suggested that “alarmism” is driving politicians to create bad environmental policies. He also said he’s not the only environmentalist that believes like him.

Moore is the author of the book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist,” in which he exposes the green movement and explains why he left the organization.

While talking with Varney, he explained that departure was in part due to the group’s “extremist positions” and it being hijacked by political and social causes as well as the left:
‘Greenie’ backing for uranium

MICHELLE RIDLEY, The West Australian May 6, 2011.

A Canadian environmentalist who turned his back on Greenpeace is in Perth to promote uranium mining.

Patrick Moore, who claims to have co-founded Greenpeace in 1971 and was a director of the organisation for 15 years, is in Perth as a guest of Cameco, one of the world’s biggest uranium producers.

Dr Moore will speak at a breakfast organised by Cameco and the WA Chamber of Minerals and Energy this morning on electricity generation, risk and the nuclear power industry.

“In the wake of Fukushima, people are suggesting that this proves that nuclear energy is too risky,” he said.

“It is the safest of all of the major energy electricity generating technologies.”
Dr Moore has been involved in a war of words with Greenpeace since he left the organisation in 1986.

The international environmental group acknowledges Dr Moore was one of its first members but denies he was a co- founder and has attacked his paid lobby work.
“I left Greenpeace because I wanted to work on solutions rather than just being in confrontation politics,” Dr Moore said.

“I believe, beginning around the mid-1980s, they embarked on a course of extremism in their environmental policy.”

Dr Moore, who has a PhD in ecology, said Greenpeace’s initial success in the 1970s was a result of the professional expertise of its early members, well targeted campaigns and practical actions.

“We were the first group that really linked peace and ecology,” he said.
“Many groups were just anti-nuke or anti-war and other groups were environmental.
“The very first campaign was aimed at not only preventing the worst disaster that civilisation could face, which was all out nuclear war, but we said that it would also be a disaster for the environment.”
Wasting money on climate change betrays the sick

THE AUSTRALIAN. May 7, 2011. Joanne Nova.

LOST opportunities are invisible but deadly. On climate change, the call to buy insurance by pricing carbon is a cop-out. Where is the cost-benefit analysis?

We’re thinking of axing Australian medical research yet we’re supporting solar panel manufacturers in China. It doesn’t have to be this way.

All the money spent employing green police, subsidising solar or researching how to pump carbon dioxide underground is money not spent on medical research.

Opportunity lost is a killer. The path not taken could be lined with happier, longer lives. Only the best evidence and real debate have a chance of helping us see through the fog to pick the better road.

While most scientists agree CO2 causes some warming, there is great debate about just how much. If CO2 has only a minor effect on temperature then spending, say, $1 billion on inefficient roof-top solar panels is not just wasted money, it’s a choice that will kill people. We won’t be able to say exactly who it will kill but we can virtually guarantee that some people will die in the future who could have been saved.

Why? Solar energy costs us more than five times what coal-powered energy does. So instead of spending $1bn on solar panels, we could have spent $200 million on cheap electricity and used the other $800m to double our medical research budget.

Right now, the government is planning to cut $133m from our $800m annual medical research budget. The Australian government has spent or will spend $3.8bn on initiatives to combat climate change across four years. (The US government was spending about $7bn a year at last count.) When Julia Gillard spends money on climate-related work instead of medical research, she is making a choice about the net benefits and it’s supposedly based on science. It’s true sooner or later medical research will get the answers right, but for someone who is sick with a deadly disease, sooner makes a life-and-death difference.

If our government-funded climate establishment makes the wrong guess about what humidity does in a warmer world, CO2 emissions become trivial and inconsequential. But the money diverted or delayed from better causes leaves a trail of destruction that cannot be repaired. Money can always be replaced, but lives lost are gone for good.

Julio Licinio, director of the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University, put together a passionate, disturbing advertisement two weeks ago, a plea to stop cuts to medical research funding. His sister died aged four from a disease that is treatable today.

Which four-year-old in 2018 will die because Gillard introduced a carbon tax instead of increasing medical research funding? Which father will die in 2022 who would have lived if we had doubled our funding for medical research? It is for people such as four-year-old Fabiola that we should keep fighting for rational debate. Bad science makes for bad policy. Poor reasoning is deadly.

Medical research is blossoming at a phenomenal, historic pace.

The exponential curve in gene therapy, telomerase research, genomics and glycobiology is barely beginning. Four significant breakthroughs were made in medical research in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2000.

These were the kinds of breakthroughs people had worked for decades to make, and some were not predicted even a few years beforehand. The human genome project was finished five years ahead of schedule and for a fraction of the expected price.

Right now, a year of medical research really does make a difference. These are the areas where we will be left behind and it will hurt. These are the industries where we need to stay at the head of the pack, not just to save lives but to save the economy as well.

Access Economics estimated in 2003 that every dollar invested in the Australian health research and development sector returned at least $5 in national economic development.

When government-funded Australian researchers discover treatments, we own vital intellectual property. We not only export products the world wants, we avoid being beholden to foreign patent holders. Some effective cancer drugs cost $2000 a week. Isn’t that the kind of research we want to own?

If we lead the world in medicine, the world is our oyster. If it turns out clean carbon technology is useful, we can buy it with the spare change from the profits of medical research. We know we need a cure for cancer. We don’t know if the rest of the world will want to pump CO2 underground 10 years from now.

When we lead the world in putting inefficient solar panels on roofs, we only help Chinese manufacturers and we win a race no one wants to win. You can’t export second-hand solar panels or resell old pink batts.

Can we start looking at the cost benefits of all our policies instead of reasoning by fallacy? The precautionary principle is no principle of science: it’s a blind tool that works for both sides of any debate.

To quote Licinio: “In 1964 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma of childhood was 100 per cent fatal. Now the cure rate is over 80 per cent, thanks to medical research. When Fabiola died I was so upset that it took me decades to recover. From protracted mourning to survivor guilt, the impact of that death shaped my life. For someone like myself who suffered tremendously due to a disease [that] was incurable and whose cure has been subsequently achieved through medical research, the proposed cuts to the NHRMC [National Health and Medical Research Council] budget are unconscionable.

“On a very positive note, my mother, Aurea, lost her own mother early on. My grandmother died at age 47 due to malignant hypertension, which was out of control, and sky-high blood pressures. My mother suffered enormously because of that death; and she knew that she had the exact same disease. Later in life, my mother also developed breast cancer. However, medical research always caught up with her and her blood pressure was always well controlled. When she was diagnosed with breast cancer she had state-of-the-art treatment, guided by medical research. My mother died in 2007 neither from hypertension nor from breast cancer. Medical research gave my mother 40 years of active, happy and highly productive life.”

Joanne Nova is a commentator and the author of The Skeptic’s Handbook. She is a former associate lecturer in science communication at the Australian National University.

* Url: