An Open Letter From U.S. Scientists on Climate Change

An Open Letter From U.S. Scientists on Climate Change

December 06, 2009 - Znet

As U.S. scientists with substantial expertise on climate change and its impacts on natural ecosystems, our built environment and human well-being, we want to assure policy makers and the public of the integrity of the underlying scientific research and the need for urgent action to reduce heat-trapping emissions. In the last few weeks, opponents of taking action on climate change have misrepresented both the content and the significance of stolen emails to obscure public understanding of climate science and the scientific process.

We would like to set the record straight.

The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process.

As the recent letter to Congress from 18 leading U.S. scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society, states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. ... If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced."

These "multiple independent lines of evidence" are drawn from numerous public and private research centers all across the United States and beyond, including several independent analyses of surface temperature data. Even without including analyses from the UK research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust.

We urge you to take account of this as you make decisions on climate policy.

Member of National Academy of Sciences
Institutional affiliation for identification purposes only


David Archer, Ph.D.
Department of the Geophysical Sciences
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL

William C. Clark, Ph.D.
Harvey Brooks Professor of International Science, Public Policy, and Human Development
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Peter C. Frumhoff, Ph.D.
Director of Science and Policy
Chief Scientist, Climate Campaign
Union of Concerned Scientists
Cambridge, MA

Inez Fung, Ph.D.
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Co-Director, Berkeley Institute of the Environment
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA

Neal Lane, Ph.D.
Rice University
Former Director, National Science Foundation
Former Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Houston, TX

Michael MacCracken, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs
The Climate Institute
Washington, DC

Pamela Matson, Ph.D.
School of Earth Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, CA

James J. McCarthy, Ph.D.
Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Jerry Melillo, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist and Director Emeritus
The Ecosystems Center
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA

Edward L. Miles, Ph.D.
Bloedel Professor of Marine Studies and Public Affairs
School of Marine Affairs
Co-Director, Center for Science in the Earth System, JISAO
University of Washington
Seattle, WA

Mario J. Molina, Ph.D.
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
Nobel Laureate, Chemistry
San Diego, CA

Ellen Mosley-Thompson, Ph.D.
Director, Byrd Polar Research Center
Professor of Geography and University Distinguished Scholar
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH

Gerald R. North, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Oceanography
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX

Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D.
Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs
Department of Geosciences and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ

Jonathan T. Overpeck, Ph.D.
Co-Director, Institute of the Environment
Department of Geosciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ

Ronald G. Prinn, Ph.D.
TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science
Director, Center for Global Change Science
Co-Director, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA

Alan Robock, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor
Rutgers University
President, Atmospheric Sciences Section, American Geophysical Union
Chair-Elect, Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences Section, American Association for the Advancement of Science
New Brunswick, NJ

Benjamin D. Santer, Ph.D.
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA

William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D.
President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Millbrook, NY

Daniel P. Schrag, Ph.D.
Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology
Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering
Director, Harvard University Center for the Environment
Cambridge, MA

Drew Shindell, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
New York, NY

Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA

Warren M. Washington, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, CO

Donald J. Wuebbles, Ph.D.
The Harry E. Preble Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL

Carl Wunsch, Ph.D.
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA


What gets me is that a significant portion of the population can believe there is an international conspiracy involving governments of all political persuasions, not to mention media around the world, all of whom are in cahoots to perpetuate the deception of global warming (for whatever reason,) despite strong evidence to the contrary.
But the same people scoff at the idea that a few hundred or even thousand professional (military?) insiders could conspire together to organize the commandeering of 4 airliners and plant some explosives covertly in 3 high rise towers (despite overwhelming evidence contradicting the official story.
Not to mention the few it would have taken to assassinate the Kennedy brothers and MLK.
They must be drinking from that big river in Africa (De Nile.)

False Consensus

Should I repeat what simuvac said weeks back in that Climate Change posts do not belong mixed in with 9/11 Truth or should I just call him a hypocrite peddling his opinion while denying the same to those that are not in agreement. What about those such as yourself, Phaedrus, that can believe they know many of the details of the 9/11 fraud and betrayal yet can believe that CO2 is polluting the world based on the dictates of the same power structures that have perpetuated 9/11-style deception on the masses throughout history. Don't go throwing around a list of people that "buy" into your side. There are plenty of lists that could be thrown back that represent the opposite view. This is not about a popularity contest as the truth is not a popularity contest. Most involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement should know that it is imperative to follow the money in regards to any "expert's" position and belief for their motive since we already know that many, if not most, university level "experts" are dependent on government funding. There is no consensus on AGW and you should know that the truth does not require laws to uphold it.

present your evidence, arguments and links- refrain from insults

nomoremrniceguy: "while denying the same to those that are not in agreement."

Since when? Did you post an article or comment that was rejected?

Personally, I think there's important parallels between the global warming debate and the 9/11 coverup, and the way situations are exploited by powerful interests, and coverage here is good, though it will probably stay in the blogs section.

So, make your case nomoremrniceguy- insults and accusations aren't going to be tolerated, and if you cite sources to back up your claims, they'll be taken more seriously.

EDIT: did you confuse simuvac w/ YT? I replied to your reply to him, and asked for links- nothing was posted in reply, but you can post them here

Clarification on a mistake

Yes, loose nuke, my mistake taking issue incorrectly against simuvac as a "hypocrite" when I confused him with YT and for that I apologize. What I should have conveyed is that the letter posted by simuvac and written by "experts" who simuvac apparently agrees with is, as in simuvac's own words, "...far from a smoking gun" I am not going to convince anyone within the confines of posting on this forum from one side over to any side of the argument. It is up to any so called "truth seeker" to seek all truths, of course with the guidance of others, but not take their word at face value without rigorous self-analysis (the BS test). If names are helpful for opposing "experts" to those posted by simuvac, start along the lines of Lord Monckton, Dr. Timothy Ball, John Coleman for example. My point is that it's a fraud to state that their is consensus over AGW and we should not fall prey to the dictates of the individuals such as those that are pushing it for that reason alone, not to mention certain "elitist" individuals with such known views towards mass humanity. The implications are far too important and require at least a fresh, balanced re-analysis without being frightened into a knee-jerk reaction that we and all our progeny will regret having done.

911 blogger mandate

Sometime ago, 911blogger changed its mandate to include news that extended beyond 9/11. I'm not posting this article to connect global warming with 9/11 Truth, although people such as Alex Jones often conflate the two as part of some global socialist conspiracy. That's why I put this in the blog section, and not the front page.

Good. They should not be

Good. They should not be connected. Poor strategy to do so.

That said, one of the most interesting things about Climategate is that it has generated a robust debate among scientists, many of whom are willing to go public with strong language and clearly defined positions on the matter.

Compare to 9/11 where few scientists will go on record in support of the official theory.

Climategate has the features of a real scientific debate, while 9/11 does not.

Strategically, what we want to do is get 9/11 to where Climategate is. But it is a mistake to connect the two.

How can you expect to gain more traction for 9/11 by wedding it to another divisive issue? I am sorry to see so many We Are Change groups pursuing the climate issue. I can understand why someone would want to pursue that issue, but it detracts from a group's work on 9/11. Why not form a new group and go for it that way?

No matter how strong your beliefs, it is a strategic and political mistake to frame your argument on 9/11 with almost anything having to do with global warming.

JFK on secrecy and the press

Presumptuous on your part.

Thanks for the lecture but I don't recall stating whether I support or deny global warning. I merely commented on people's ability to accept one conspiracy while denying others that would involve less participants.
The truth is I really don't know about global climate change and I am way past caring because mankind seems destined to self destruct in much more dramatic fashion. I'm just going to get on with today.

Uncaring pessimist

The mystery here is why members of the 911 movement believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

And there's no need to get indignant ... you had just claimed 'strong evidence' in support of it.


You're right and thanks for pointing out my insensitivity.
I'm not by nature uncaring nor pessimistic. It's just sometimes hard not to get cynical.
i guess I just got my back up and and responded without thinking.
I don't want to get in to an argument about global climate change.
Despite what I believe the evidence shows, it seems like an argument that will never end.
I am by nature an optimist but sometimes I need a kick back from the brink of cynical fatalism:(((

If you want to "follow the money" on global warming

perhaps you would be interested in this story:

Right-wing billionaire David Koch, who along with his brother Charles owns the oil and gas empire Koch Industries, constantly presents himself as a champion of science. Next year, a wing of the Smithsonian will be named after him because of his generous donations. Indeed, in accepting Koch’s donations, the Smithsonian Human Origins Program director Rick Potts attempted to whitewash Koch’s philanthropist history:

POTTS: What we find in David Koch is a person who’s committed to doing things for the American public that has no relationship to politics

Koch apparently relishes this perception that his money buys. In an interview earlier this year, Koch pretended that he opposes organizations which politicize and distort science:

Q: What role do you think politics should play in educating the public about evolution?

KOCH: That’s an interesting question. I think politicians should really stay out of it and allow scientists to present the facts and discoveries. I hate to see it politicized.

In an op-ed in the Boston Globe yesterday, I observed that Koch has manufactured a positive image for himself by giving to laudable causes, while at the same time, quietly “funneling tens of millions of dollars to more subterranean efforts that reflect his conservative politics.” Despite his funding of the Smithsonian, Koch has done more to politicize and and undermine the public’s understanding of science than any other single person. Koch has funded the leading groups dedicated to spreading skepticism of climate change:

– Koch’s Americans for Prosperity, the right-wing tea party group which Koch founded in 1984 and continues to finance, has just announced that it will send a team of political operatives to Copenhagen for the United Nations Climate Change Conference. AFP intends to hold a press conference to attack any climate change solution the President promises as a mistake that will “kill jobs here” and “infringe on our personal and national freedoms.”

– Koch has funded the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has been the most aggressive conservative front group heralding hacked e-mails as proof that climate change does not exist.

– Koch funds the “Hot Air Tour,” a campaign led by lobbyists stopping in cities across the country to call into question the science underpinning climate change. The tour also features an actual hot air balloon to illustrate their beleif that climate change science is just “hot air.”

The National Academy of Sciences, the US Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have all come to the same conclusion: “that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use and the loss of carbon-sink capacity in heavily timbered forests are increasing temperatures and making oceans more acidic.” David Koch’s Koch Industries derives much of its profit from its oil refineries, one of the major emitters of carbon dioxide, and from its George-Pacific timber subsidiary, one of the largest contributors to the loss of carbon-sink capacity. So while it’s clear Koch’s bottom line is in conflict with addressing the world’s climate crisis, it should also be clear that he is no champion of science — no matter how many halls he buys at the Smithsonian.

Carbon Trading May Dwarf That of Crude Oil

“I’m estimating carbon markets could be worth $2 trillion in transaction value – money changing hands – within five years of trading (starting),”

“It’s very exciting, the opportunities are really unbounded,”

But of course, this has nothing to do with the fraudulent 'science'.

Carbon Truth Action DVD Now Available for Download

There is now a 2 disc DVD compilation set of the best Carbon Truth material available. You can download the DVDs via bittorrent and burn straight to disc from the file. This will be a powerful tool for waking people up to the GW/CC scam.

Part I: The Science of Climate Fraud

A. The Great Global Warming Swindle
B. Lord Christopher Monkton
C. Doomsday Called Off

Part II: The Economics and Politics of Climate Fraud

A. Fall of the Republic (Excerpt)
B. The Great Global Warming Swindle
C. Message to the Environmental Movement
D. 30,000 Scientists Sue Al Gore
E. Climategate
F. Hide the Decline

Download this file. It is a "torrent":

Open it with BitTorrent and it will download to your hard drive. The program is at

Keep it in your "shared" folder with your BitTorrent program open and then others can download it from you. That's called "seeding".

Open the downloaded file. It will contain a folder with two subfolders. Then burn the folder to a DVD and it should play on your computer or TV as a DVD.

EDIT - Apparently BitTorrent is a problem (the program). Try VUZE instead. Download the program at's also on PirateBay now...

Try that torrent rather than the one I posted.

Part II will be ready later tonight.

Ask questions and discuss here:

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Rolling Stone exposes Goldman Sachs and the carbon credit scam

This post has one purpose and one only – to convince you to follow the link below and read a powerful, eye-opening expose. Even Michael Savage spent an hour on it this week. No, the artitcle not in a conservative journal like the National Review (sic). It’s from the left-leaning, anti-establishment “Rolling Stone Magazine.”

However, since I posted this recommendation, it appears that Rolling Stone has forced the linked article off the web.

The Rolling Stone has a history of not posting key articles and features --- that's logical. They want to sell print newspapers, and apparently haven't learned how to make money with their online posts. So perhaps you might consider supporting tree cutting by buying their current edition on the stands now.

The Stone article is the story about Goldman Sachs and how they have been smack in the middle of every billion and trillion dollar bubble burst in recent memory.... And how Goldman Sachs is about to engineer the next great bubble --- the potential trillion dollar carbon cap and credit market (which doesn’t even exist, yet.)

The piece is titled, “The Great American Bubble Machine” with a subtitle of “From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression.”

Here’s a link to a compact summary and critique of the Stone article from "the Atlantic":_ Link

The author is Matt Taibbi who is a “Rolling Stone” contributing editor. His writing style is not in the mode of business chatter. Taibbi writes in rough street talk as he strips Goldman Sachs veneer.

Here's one from explaining how the financial high rollers are expecting cash in big time on the carbon trading deals.

Global Warming: “Fixing the Climate Data around the Policy”

by Michel Chossudovsky


The carbon trading system is a multibillion money-making bonanza for the financial establishment. The stakes are extremely high and the various lobby groups on behalf of Wall Street have already positioned themselves.

According to a recent report, “the carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU’s emissions trading scheme… The speed of that growth will depend on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such as the ETS will expand around the globe.” (Terry Macalister, Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade, The Guardian, 28 November 2009)

The large financial conglomerates, involved in derivative trade, including JP Morgan Chase, Bank America Merrill Lynch, Barclay’s, Citi Bank, Nomura, Société Générale, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are actively involved in carbon trading.( FACTBOX: Investment banks in carbon trading | Reuters, 14 September 2009)

The legitimacy of the carbon trading system rests on the legitimacy of the Global Warming Consensus, which views CO2 emissions as the single threat to the environment. And for Wall Street the carbon trading system is a convenient and secure money-making safety-net, allowing for the transfer of billions of dollars into the pockets of a handful of conglomerates.

“Every major financial house in New York and London has set up carbon trading operations. Very big numbers are dancing in their heads, and they need them to replace the “wealth” that evaporated in the housing bust. Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital, told the New York Times, “Carbon will be the world’s biggest market over all.” Barclays thinks the current $60 billion carbon market could grow to $1 trillion within a decade. Four years ago Redshaw, a former electricity trader, couldn’t get anyone to talk to him about carbon.” (Mark Braly, The Multibillion Dollar Carbon Trading,, 5 March 2008)

And then there's a recent article "Enron's Other Secret" from Canada's Financial Post. Seems that none other than that do-gooder and altruistic philanthropist Kenneth "Kenny-Boy" Lay and his Enron choir boys were in the thick of it with Al Gore and Clinton advising on how the carbon trading protocols and deals should be structured to ensure high-rolling shysters like themselves were not going to miss getting a place in the 1st class coach on the new gravy train.

Enron's Other Secret

Some of the climate-change profiteers are relatively unknown corporations; others are household names with only their behind-the-scenes role in the climate-change industry unknown. Over the next few weeks, in an extended newspaper series, you will become familiar with some of the profiteers, and with their machinations. This series begins with Enron, a pioneer in the climate-change industry.

Almost two decades before President Barack Obama made “cap-and-trade” for carbon dioxide emissions a household term, an obscure company called Enron — a natural-gas pipeline company that had become a big-time trader in energy commodities — had figured out how to make millions in a cap-and-trade program for sulphur dioxide emissions, thanks to changes in the U.S. government’s Clean Air Act. To the delight of shareholders, Enron’s stock price rose rapidly as it became the major trader in the U.S. government’s $20-billion a year emissions commodity market.

Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay, keen to engineer an encore, saw his opportunity when Bill Clinton and Al Gore were inaugurated as president and vice-president in 1993. To capitalize on Al Gore’s interest in global warming, Enron immediately embarked on a massive lobbying effort to develop a trading system for carbon dioxide, working both the Clinton administration and Congress. Political contributions and Enron-funded analyses flowed freely, all geared to demonstrating a looming global catastrophe if carbon dioxide emissions weren’t curbed. An Enron-funded study that dismissed the notion that calamity could come of global warming, meanwhile, was quietly buried.

To magnify the leverage of their political lobbying, Enron also worked the environmental groups. Between 1994 and 1996, the Enron Foundation donated $1-million to the Nature Conservancy and its Climate Change Project, a leading force for global warming reform, while Lay and other individuals associated with Enron donated $1.5-million to environmental groups seeking international controls on carbon dioxide.

The intense lobbying paid off. Lay became a member of president Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development, as well as his friend and advisor. In the summer of 1997, prior to global warming meetings in Kyoto, Japan, Clinton sought Lay’s advice in White House discussions. The fruits of Enron’s efforts came soon after, with the signing of the Kyoto Protocol.


Most of all, the skeptics are treated with suspicion, and accused of having been in the pay of the energy industry. The public in good part has accepted these accusations, its underlying assumption being that the fossil-fuel industry has the most at stake in climate-change policy. But if the public is to be skeptical of the influence that big money has over global-warming science, it should take the temperature anew, and recognize that the biggest money interest of all in the climate change debate lies with those poised to cash in on the climate-change policies of Kyoto and its successors.

Sorry, but I smell a rat in Copenhagen. Even supposing global warming is true, are these bankers and financiers that almost crashed they system and took the taxpayers for billion dollar rides the people we want to trust to structure the economic details as to how we combat the problem?

Bubble Machine link

"Even supposing global warming is true, are these bankers and financiers that almost crashed they system and took the taxpayers for billion dollar rides the people we want to trust to structure the economic details as to how we combat the problem?"

Human-caused global warming or not, Goldman Bloodsucks is just in it for the money, and absolutely they and their ilk and their puppets in the White House and Congress cannot be trusted on the solution.

Carbon-trading is a half-measure and a for-profit scam:

World's Leading Scientist Fighting Against Global Warming is Opposed to Cap And Trade

I think you have to separate

global warming from the corporate solution, "carbon trading."

Carbon trading is a fraud. Global warming is not.


Supposing it is true that we are experiencing "global warming" despite the current declining trend in global temperatures over the last decade and ignoring the cyclical nature of an ever-evolving planet; are you stating as fact that global warming is caused by natural forces such as the sun or by man-made (anthropogenic) inputs?

It's not a matter of either/or

Global warming, a fact supported by every National Academy of Science in the industrialized world, is both a product of natural warming (and of course cooling) cycles and of human activities. Yes, the planet undergoes cycles of warming and cooling. No one denies that. What the overwhelming majority of scientists say is that an additional amount of warming is created by greenhouse gas emissions, which are in part a byproduct of human activity.


You got your head on straight.

In Their Own Words
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein

Carbon trading IS a scam

I think we all agree on that. Here's a good blog on the subject from (I think) former 911blogger GeorgeWashington:

Carbon Dioxide

Carbon Dioxide is a nutrient to the environment. Plants thrive off of CO2. It is not a greenhouse gas. Why all the focus on CO2? Science told us in the '80s that car exhaust is primarily carbon MONOXIDE which is indeed a severe pollutant, but now 'science' tells us that car exhaust is carbon dioxide. How did that happen? When is science false propaganda? When it lies, and it is lying at all costs when it comes to CO2.

The EPA announced yesterday that they will be regulating CO2 emissions. Our breath is a CO2 emission, so the EPA will now be regulating our breath. The Climate Change / Global Warming hoax is not about corporate profits, not to say that the perpetrators are not setting themselves up to make billions off the scam like they did with 9-11. It's about control. Control over our government, and control over us.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.


The threat of global warming was invented to justify a global tax and a global government and global bank to administer and collect that tax. It is all part of the grand strategy of the financial oligarchs to destroy sovereign nations and their productive capacity in order to realize their dream of a world empire a la British Empire of the 1800s. This is all well documented. In the 1970s the same people were hyping "global cooling" because of a cooling trend happening at that time.

I used to believe in global warming and still am a hardcore environmentalist. However I have been awakened in the past months to many hidden truths from history which show how the U.S. Republic is being deliberately destroyed because it is the main bulwark against world empire. Now with the U.S. being an empire since the end of WWII, and with its collapse imminent, their dreams are close, but not fully realized. This carbon tax fits into their agenda perfectly.

Watch a documentary called 1932 for more information on the history of the fight between the U.S. Republic and the Imperialist European oligarchs who are destroying the U.S. systematically through their outlets such as the Federal Reserve, the IMF, the UN, the CIA, and the CFR/Trilateral Commission. Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are all key players, as well as the secret society Skull and Bones.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence

Some Quotes

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
– Professor Maurice King

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

“Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath the surface of the earth is a willful expansion
of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature.”
– Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
– Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
– Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

“All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and
behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
– United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

“One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
– Christopher Manes, Earth First!

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
– David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

“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.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
– Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
– Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
-Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
– Al Gore, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis.”
– David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive manager

“Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send out entire planet’s climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced – a catastrophe of our own making.”
– Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth

“By the end of this century, climate change will reduce the human population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Revenge of Gaia

“Climate Change will result in a catastrophic, global seal level rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”
– Greenpeace International

“Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon – the man-made natural disaster.”
– Barack Obama, US Presidential Candidate

“We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth.”
– Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

“In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years from today it will probably be too late.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”
– UN Commission on Global Governance report

“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

“In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
– Dr. Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General

“Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.”
– Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute

“A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“Adopting a central organizing principle means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, to halt the destruction of the environment.”
– Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
– UN Agenda 21

“The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human sepcies has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution. Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature.”
– Rene Dubos, board member Planetary Citizens

Great quotes...

Thanks for the list.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence

All the credit goes to

All the credit goes to for this compilation

Google "ClimateGate"

and form your own opinion.

Or else, from some distnguished American Physical Society members:

Warmest decade on record

scientists whom received billions in governmental funding

to fit a political agenda using data that has recently been implicated as deliberate manipulations and deceptions as revealed by what is now known as ClimateGate. The only consensus is the consensus by those that refuse to allow opposing views and research into the arena of open public debate and disclosure.

There have been 2 investigative TV programs about this...

... recently in Finland. There is a lot of evidence that shows the manipulation of climate data and witholding of data from other scientists (definitely not a scientific practice).


I had got a couple of points for replying with this section of code, but I suppose it was deleted, as I see simuvac's reply now instead.

If there is a problem with posting code could a moderator explain why?

Assuming there's no problem, here it is again:

; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'


more treachery

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak
Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol

A number of commenters here have insisted global warming's a hoax, but so far no links have been posted to research which debunks it.

melting ice

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

I throw my hat in with the hoaxers

Links to studies are not necessary. Body language says it all.

A recent overview

Carbon Dioxide

Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming
Where We Stand on the Issue

C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

"Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are a boon to the biosphere. In lieu of global warming, a little of which would in all probability be good for the planet, where do the above considerations leave us? Simply with the biospheric benefits that come from the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment: enhanced plant growth, increased plant water use efficiency, greater food production for both people and animals, plus a host of other biological benefits too numerous to describe in this short statement.

And these benefits are not mere predictions. They are real. Already, in fact, they are evident in long-term tree-ring records, which reveal a history of increasing forest growth rates that have closely paralleled the progression of the Industrial Revolution. They can also be seen in the slow but inexorable spreading of woody plants into areas where only grasses grew before. In fact, the atmosphere itself bears witness to the increasing prowess of the entire biosphere in the yearly expanding amplitude of the its seasonal CO2 cycle. This oscillatory "breath of the biosphere" - its inhalation of CO2, produced by spring and summer terrestrial plant growth, and its exhalation of CO2, produced by fall and winter biomass decomposition - has been documented to be growing greater and greater each year in response to the ever-increasing growth stimulation provided by the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content."

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

The debate

thanks for the links.

Some skeptics of global warming deny it's happening; or that if it's happening, that it's human caused (or what the cause is); or that it's a bad thing.

Both sides have wealthy/powerful persons and orgs behind them; Exxon-Mobil, US Chamber of Commerce, IATA, Saudi Arabia and others are investing millions in challenging the science and policy changes- Al Gore, Nike, Google, Goldman Sachs and others are on the other side.

Obviously, Goldman Sachs is in it for the carbon-trading money, and Al Gore is investing in companies that will benefit from a shift to renewables. Obviously, Exxon-Mobil, Saudi Arabia and many members of the Chamber of Commerce and IATA will benefit from no change to public understanding/policy.

Who to trust? I'm not a climate scientist, I don't understand most of the information, but with heavyweights like the above battling on it, money does not have a 1-side advantage in this debate, the way it does w/ 9/11 truth, election integrity and other issues.

Sourcewatch- useful resource for examining the interests of the various interests:

Report: Bush insiders ‘distorted,’ still ‘influence’ climate change debate

‘Climategate’ shakes trust in scientists: Saudi Arabia

Exxon Mobil

"... emphasized recently by Exxon Mobil’s call for a global carbon tax."

So they're on the other side, so to speak. I wonder why?

There's no need to worry about following the money though, or who supports what, as we're supposed to be talking about science! If you get chance to read any of the articles posted, you will see they are aimed at a general audience, and are quite understandable. Even, dare I say it, interesting ...

What's the truth?

Prisonplanet article: "Claims by climate change alarmists that “deniers” are all funded by oil companies is yet another crudely contrived hoax. In reality, oil companies are the most vocal proponents of man-made climate change and the most aggressive in pushing to tax CO2 emissions."

Sure, they're not "all" funded by oil companies- coal companies, the airline industry, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. have also been pushing skepticism. Tillerson's call for a direct carbon tax may be intended as a way to monkeywrench the debate over a carbon tax, or, realizing that denial is a lost cause, he's pushing a solution that will not bite into Exxon's profit as much. Exxon's role in funding and promoting climate-change skepticism has been well documented:

"There's no need to worry about following the money though, or who supports what, as we're supposed to be talking about science!"

In theory, sure- however, as 9/11 truth activists are well aware, in the human world it's not that simple. You have already pointed out that Goldman Bloodsucks is positioning to profit from the cap and trade scam. And other skeptics here are claiming there's an international conspiracy involving many nations and institutions to game the scientific research and peer-reviewed literature- this would obviously require money.

Given the resources of the dirty energy industry, even if most of the climate science journals have been compromised, they could easily start numerous journals of their own- have they done so?

And if well-researched and documented papers have been rejected w/o cause, they could surely document and raise a huge PR stink over it. Have they done so?

Is the science allegedly documenting human-caused climate change a hoax? Influence device, if you've read and understood the articles, sum up the major arguments and facts debunking human-caused climate change, and cite links.

People are easily scared and manipulated

"In theory, sure- however, as 9/11 truth activists are well aware, in the human world it's not that simple."

That depends on what you're trying to do, or find out. I live in the human world, however I'm interested in the truth, and that does not depend on what Nike or Exxon 'thinks'.

"Given the resources of the dirty energy industry, even if most of the climate science journals have been compromised, they could easily start numerous journals of their own- have they done so?"

By 'dirty energy' do you mean carbon based or all 'non-renewable' fuels? I know some carbon based life forms; are they dirty too? I suppose we could ask Exxon Mobil, though I fear they'd be too busy promoting the carbon tax to return the call. By the way, maybe Exxon are looking forward to increased oil prices?

"And if well-researched and documented papers have been rejected w/o cause, they could surely document and raise a huge PR stink over it. Have they done so?"

I think you misunderstand the situation with regard to the literature; I'm saying it doesn't support CAGW. Therefore there is no scientific 'consensus' on CAGW.

Obviously nobody thinks humans can't affect the climate. The question is how and to what degree our co2 does, how beneficial those changes are, and how accurately we can measure and predict etc.

It is currently fashionable to blame many things on 'global warming', so finding and analysing each individual story would take a long time. Maybe if you were to indicate something that struck you as particularly compelling?

Otherwise, I'd recommend the 'recent overview' I posted previously, that covers a lot of ground pretty quickly. Alternatively here's a site referencing various papers etc.:

Finally, isn't skepticism essential to science, rather than something to be 'pushed'? You make it sound like a street drug! Either way, I'd rather you didn't use the term 'denial' ... especially as a 911 activist :)