Paul Craig Roberts - Good-Bye. Truth Has Fallen and Taken Liberty With It

Good-Bye. Truth Has Fallen and Taken Liberty With It

By Paul Craig Roberts
March 24, 2010

There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest.

Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.

Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded “anti-American,” “anti-semite” or “conspiracy theorist.”

Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.

Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt.

Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.

Today many whose goal once was the discovery of truth are now paid handsomely to hide it. “Free market economists” are paid to sell offshoring to the American people. High-productivity, high value-added American jobs are denigrated as dirty, old industrial jobs. Relicts from long ago, we are best shed of them. Their place has been taken by “the New Economy,” a mythical economy that allegedly consists of high-tech white collar jobs in which Americans innovate and finance activities that occur offshore. All Americans need in order to participate in this “new economy” are finance degrees from Ivy League universities, and then they will work on Wall Street at million dollar jobs.

Economists who were once respectable took money to contribute to this myth of “the New Economy.”

And not only economists sell their souls for filthy lucre. Recently we have had reports of medical doctors who, for money, have published in peer-reviewed journals concocted “studies” that hype this or that new medicine produced by pharmaceutical companies that paid for the “studies.”

The Council of Europe is investigating the drug companies’ role in hyping a false swine flu pandemic in order to gain billions of dollars in sales of the vaccine.

The media helped the US military hype its recent Marja offensive in Afghanistan, describing Marja as a city of 80,000 under Taliban control. It turns out that Marja is not urban but a collection of village farms.

And there is the global warming scandal, in which NGOs. the UN, and the nuclear industry colluded in concocting a doomsday scenario in order to create profit in pollution.

Wherever one looks, truth has fallen to money.

Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.

I remember when, following CIA director William Colby’s testimony before the Church Committee in the mid-1970s, presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan issued executive orders preventing the CIA and U.S. black-op groups from assassinating foreign leaders. In 2010 the US Congress was told by Dennis Blair, head of national intelligence, that the US now assassinates its own citizens in addition to foreign leaders.

When Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that US citizens no longer needed to be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted of a capital crime, just murdered on suspicion alone of being a “threat,” he wasn’t impeached. No investigation pursued. Nothing happened. There was no Church Committee. In the mid-1970s the CIA got into trouble for plots to kill Castro. Today it is American citizens who are on the hit list. Whatever objections there might be don’t carry any weight. No one in government is in any trouble over the assassination of U.S. citizens by the U.S. government.

As an economist, I am astonished that the American economics profession has no awareness whatsoever that the U.S. economy has been destroyed by the offshoring of U.S. GDP to overseas countries. U.S. corporations, in pursuit of absolute advantage or lowest labor costs and maximum CEO “performance bonuses,” have moved the production of goods and services marketed to Americans to China, India, and elsewhere abroad. When I read economists describe offshoring as free trade based on comparative advantage, I realize that there is no intelligence or integrity in the American economics profession.

Intelligence and integrity have been purchased by money. The transnational or global U.S. corporations pay multi-million dollar compensation packages to top managers, who achieve these “performance awards” by replacing U.S. labor with foreign labor. While Washington worries about “the Muslim threat,” Wall Street, U.S. corporations and “free market” shills destroy the U.S. economy and the prospects of tens of millions of Americans.

Americans, or most of them, have proved to be putty in the hands of the police state.

Americans have bought into the government’s claim that security requires the suspension of civil liberties and accountable government. Astonishingly, Americans, or most of them, believe that civil liberties, such as habeas corpus and due process, protect “terrorists,” and not themselves. Many also believe that the Constitution is a tired old document that prevents government from exercising the kind of police state powers necessary to keep Americans safe and free.

Most Americans are unlikely to hear from anyone who would tell them any different.

I was associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal. I was Business Week’s first outside columnist, a position I held for 15 years. I was columnist for a decade for Scripps Howard News Service, carried in 300 newspapers. I was a columnist for the Washington Times and for newspapers in France and Italy and for a magazine in Germany. I was a contributor to the New York Times and a regular feature in the Los Angeles Times. Today I cannot publish in, or appear on, the American “mainstream media.”

For the last six years I have been banned from the “mainstream media.” My last column in the New York Times appeared in January, 2004, coauthored with Democratic U.S. Senator Charles Schumer representing New York. We addressed the offshoring of U.S. jobs. Our op-ed article produced a conference at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and live coverage by C-Span. A debate was launched. No such thing could happen today.

For years I was a mainstay at the Washington Times, producing credibility for the Moony newspaper as a Business Week columnist, former Wall Street Journal editor, and former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. But when I began criticizing Bush’s wars of aggression, the order came down to Mary Lou Forbes to cancel my column.

The American corporate does not serve the truth. It serves the government and the interest groups that empower the government.

America’s fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government’s account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media. It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based.

These trillion dollar wars have created financing problems for Washington’s deficits and threaten the U.S. dollar’s role as world reserve currency. The wars and the pressure that the budget deficits put on the dollar’s value have put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block. Former Goldman Sachs chairman and U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is after these protections for the elderly. Fed chairman Bernanke is also after them. The Republicans are after them as well. These protections are called “entitlements” as if they are some sort of welfare that people have not paid for in payroll taxes all their working lives.

With over 21 per cent unemployment as measured by the methodology of 1980, with American jobs, GDP, and technology having been given to China and India, with war being Washington’s greatest commitment, with the dollar over-burdened with debt, with civil liberty sacrificed to the “war on terror,” the liberty and prosperity of the American people have been thrown into the trash bin of history.

The militarism of the U.S. and Israeli states, and Wall Street and corporate greed, will now run their course. As the pen is censored and its might extinguished, I am signing off.

Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at:

Link to Original CounterPunch Story:

"After years of ridiculing the 9-11 truth movement, Counterpunch has finally published an article that briefly
questions the "official" 9-11 conspiracy theory. It is written by Paul Craig Roberts. I sent them both a thank
you note...." ~ hat tip to Henry for submitting this

Also published over at OpEdNews


Brilliant essay.

And I too have witnessed this process, from my childhood in the 1960's, to the present situation. The changing of the simple concept of truth, first from absolute, then to relative, and finally to the mishmash of nonsense we are fed today, is astonishing.

Thank you PCR. And now, Truth and Liberty must be taken back.

Strange ...

I thought A. Cockburn, editor of Counterpunch, was violently against 9/11 truth ...

Alexander Cockburn

A. Cockburn is brain dead on the issue of 9/11 and global warming (And, well, here we have PCR borderline suggesting that global warming is in question - but he's right about the nuclear industry taking advantage of the current exposure). PCR is fantastic on a lot of issues, especially 9/11. I think Counterpunch is co-publishing one of PCR's books, so I think he might have a little more freedom than most to write what he wants about 9/11.

I've also noticed that A. Cockburn has kept his mouth shut lately on the issue of 9/11 so I don't know if he changed his mind, but it's pretty hard to come out and call 1000 engineers and architects crazy.

To be fair, Cockburn is really good on many other issues that address systemic problems with war, capitalism and the state. He correctly called out the SPLC issue (

Nuclear Thatcher

"Mrs Thatcher could not have promoted the global warming issue without the support of her UK political party. And they were willing to give it. Following the General Election of 1979, most of the incoming Cabinet had been members of the government which lost office in 1974. They blamed the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) for their 1974 defeat. They, therefore, desired an excuse for reducing the UK coal industry and, thus, the NUM’s power. Coal-fired power stations emit CO2 but nuclear power stations don’t. Global warming provided an excuse for reducing the UK’s dependence on coal by replacing it with nuclear power.

And the Conservative Party wanted a large UK nuclear power industry for another reason. That industry’s large nuclear processing facilities were required for the UK’s nuclear weapons programme and the opposition Labour Party was then opposing the Conservative Party’s plans to upgrade the UK’s nuclear deterrent with Trident missiles and submarines. Unfortunately, the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents had damaged public confidence in nuclear technology. Then, privatisation of the UK’s electricity supply industry exposed the secret that UK nuclear electricity cost four times more than UK coal-fired electricity. Global warming became the only remaining excuse for the unpopular nuclear power facilities needed for nuclear weapons. Mrs Thatcher had to be seen to spend money at home if her international campaign was to be credible."

'To be fair, Cockburn is

'To be fair, Cockburn is really good on many other issues'

Indeed he is--and yet his unfairness in dismissing the 9/11 truth issue has been so pronounced that it makes it very difficult to be fair in return. Actually, its amazing how much both he and Chomsky are alike in their attitudes toward not only 9/11 but also the JFK assassination. With respect to both of those events, so revealing of a system whose corruption these left intellectuals otherwise routinely document, both of them are almost identical in their disdain and dismissiveness--won't even consider the evidence (we have Michael Parenti to thank for calling them to account for such 'conspiracy phobia' in his writings and lectures).

With Roberts, I believe he had a relationship with Counterpunch before his views on 9/11 had come around, and at least some of his contributions continue to be welcome there. If the truth of 9/11 were the main thrust of this article, rather than a point raised near the end, I'm thinking they may not have run it (but of course, it's good that they did anyway).

Another regular Counterpunch contributor to mention in this regard (at least he was a regular contributor back when I was a regular reader) is Bill Christison, a former CIA analyst who agrees with Cockburn regarding Israel and the Palestinians. He has argued that, at the least, the 9/11 truth movement deserves a respectful hearing (whether the article in which he did so ran in Counterpunch or elsehwere I can't recall, but I know that Griffin cites it in the introductory chapter of 'Debunking 9/11 Debunking.).

Then there was Kurt Nimmo, who used to have a blog called 'Another day in the empire,' who also was a regular at Counterpunch. I think in his case, he didn't stop with articles against the official 9/11 story, but may have actually gone to the point of criticizing Cockburn himself for his anti-truther screeds--thus ending his Counterpunch days to an end, if I'm not mistaken.

So, exceptions have popped up here and there on that site. The problem is that to the extent that the many other writers on that site address 9/11--usually in passing as they discuss other political topics--they appear to have no problems with the official account. Even as that account has proven to be the indispensable foundation for so many of the foreign and domestic actions of the government which these writers same writers claim to be so opposed to. And even as so many flaws with that account have been exposed (just as Roberts says).

Is Cockburn himself maybe lightening up now where 9/11 is concerned, as you suggest? Not that I can say one way or the other. He really weighed in aginst the truth movement around the fifth anniversary, even had a scientist from a government lab, Manuel Garcia, attempt to ridicule the movement with turgid arguments in support of impact-and-fire induced WTC collapses (and I recall Frank Legge handing this same Garcia his lunch in a reply). He has seen since, though, that the movement isn't going away. Some time afterwards, he wrote an article on the history of the founding of the Federal Reserve System under a headline that said something like 'Here's a conspiracy theory we do believe in'--as though he may have been concerned about alienating some of his readership as a result of his 9/11-truth bashing, and so was trying to regain some credibility with them. I'm doubtful, given his track record, that he'll ever be with us. But perhaps he's simply grown tired of fighting us. And I suppose we could take that as some small measure of accomplishment. He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who backs down easily.

I totally agree with this article by PCR. He nails it again.

I applaud his courage to tell the truth in the face of governo-corporate tyranny.

Goodbye - Signing Off?

Paul Craig Roberts: "As the pen is censored and its might extinguished, I am signing off."

Does this mean that he will not be writing anymore, or is it just his way of ending this column?

on Russia Today March 26th

Roberts Mostly Right

He is wrong about Global Warming, that is scientific fact.

It is true

that the world sometimes warms up. Not for the past decade, but sometimes. These periods are beneficial to life. We are currently in a warm period, between ice ages.

Global Warming is a real threat

I am somewhat shocked that I would find global warming deniers on a site dedicated to the truth about 9/11, especially given the clear track record of the battle that scientists have had in the capitalist press when it comes to 9/11.

We are in a inter-glacial cycle yes, but we have plenty of data on past inter-glacial cycles that clearly demonstrates that what is happening now is unique. Paleoceanographers, climatologists, marine biologists, and atmospheric chemists have been demonstrating quite conclusively that we are experiencing anthropogenic warming. It is real, and it is caused by the synergistic effects of the burning of fossil fuels, rainforest degradation, factory farming, species extinctions, etc.

The attacks on global warming are almost identical to that of 9/11. They are using the "Tobacco Industry Model" of introducing doubt and skepticism in order to deter the conversation to the realm of a "choice" - who do you believe? This is antithetical to the scientific method. It is the politics of doubt and belief rather than a science based on facts. And it serves the interest of capital and the state to perpetuate myths and attack science.

Wake up.

No one knows jack about climate...

I find it strange that one knows much of anything "as fact" these days?

There is nothing like the evidence we have to demonstrate the lie of 9/11 in the argument of GW due to MM CO2 either for or against.

I would say just like the rest of the world, most 9/11 Truthers veiws vary regarding the GW issue, from rejection as a scare for profit to a support of the precautionary principle regarless of doubtful evidence.

It is simply unscientific to state we know what the climate is doing and why:)

Arguments over GW here are as useful as arguments over religion, simply it is off topic!

Kind regards John

PS - I believe it is fair to state that CO2 may have and has had an effect on climate, in my opinion it is not a fact though. The fact is that tempurature does have an effect on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, my understanding is that this is proven:)

Anthropogenic climate change is real

There is a plethora of evidence for human induced climate change. If you think otherwise, you haven't looked at the data, or are paying too much attention to the U.S. corporate media. The issue of the nuclear industry exploiting the fear of climate change on the one hand, and climate change be human induced on the other, are not mutually exclusive.

Having worked and done research in this field, on sea surface water temperatures in relation to atmospheric temperatures across multiple glacial and inter-glacial cycles, the trend is clear. We know from many many different sources what the historical record is, and that during the current "Anthropocene" we are responsible for the current warming trend.

Read the Copenhagen Diagnosis here:

Quoting an article from Scripps Institution of Oceanagraphy:

The new evidence to have emerged includes:
• Satellite and direct measurements now demonstrate that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass and contributing to sea level rise at an increasing rate.

• Arctic sea-ice has melted far beyond the expectations of climate models. For example, the area of summer sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40 percent greater than the average projection from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

• Sea level has risen more than five centimeters over the past 15 years, about 80 percent higher than IPCC projections from 2001. Accounting for ice-sheets and glaciers, global sea-level rise may exceed one meter by 2100, with a rise of up to two meters considered an upper limit by this time. This is much higher than previously projected by the IPCC. Furthermore, beyond 2100, sea level rise of several meters must be expected over the next few centuries.

• In 2008 carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were about 40 percent higher than those in 1990. Even if emissions do not grow beyond today's levels, within just 20 years the world will have used up the allowable emissions to have a reasonable chance of limiting warming to less than two degrees Celsius.

The report concludes that global emissions must peak then decline rapidly within the next five to ten years for the world to have a reasonable chance of avoiding the very worst impacts of climate change.

Now finally, how is this relevant to 9/11? Well, the same mechanisms are at work here to discredit the science in both cases; namely, the tobacco industry model of casting doubt on the subject, or directly attacking the scientists in the respective fields.

There is legitimate scientific dissent on the matter.

Shortly before I woke up to 9/11 Truth, I read Impact of the Environment on Human Migration in Eurasia (Hardback): Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop, held in St. Petersburg, 15-18 November 2003 Book. (Series: NATO Science Series: IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences). One of the contributors, Bas van Geel has urged caution regarding anthropomorphic climate change. Mind you, van Geel's "tree hugger" credentials are unimpeachable.

Here is an example of van Geel's work on archaeological work on pre-modern climate change: The sun, climate change and the expansion of the Scythians after 850 BC, Bas van Geel (PDF)

Paul Craig Roberts doesn't seem to be categorically denying climate change, or even an anthropogenic contribution to it. What his objection appears to be is that climate change is being used to terrify and manipulate public opinion in a way that is not conducive to individual liberty and national autonomy. It's not just a question of whether anthropogenic climate change is taking place, it's a question of what we should be doing about it. PCR seems to be saying that the course of action is not open to genuine debate. It's 'problem-reaction-solution; our way or the highway'.

Most "dissent" is energy industry funded

"The target audience of denialism is the lay audience, not scientists. It's made up to look like science, but it's PR." (David Archer)

Now in the case of Bas van Geel, he focuses primarily on very recent micro-climates. His work sounds interesting as it focuses on solar radiation having more of an impact than CO2. He is quoted as saying, “I do not deny that an enhanced greenhouse effect is possible, but I wonder whether natural causes aren’t more important than the increased emission of greenhouse gases." However, I think the volume of data supporting anthropogenic change is far more vast geographically and chronologically than van Geel's work. He is also very much in the minority. Tiny minority.

Here's a direct response to van Geel's solar radiation hypothesis found in the pages of Scientific American:

"Two patterns provide a fingerprint of human influence. The first is greater warming over land than ocean and greater warming at the surface of the sea than in the deeper layers. This pattern is consistent with greenhouse gas–induced warming by the overlying atmosphere: the ocean warms more slowly because of its large thermal inertia. The warming also indicates that a large amount of heat is being taken up by the ocean, demonstrating that the planet’s energy budget has been pushed out of balance.

A second pattern of change is that while the troposphere (the lower region of the atmosphere) has warmed, the stratosphere, just above it, has cooled. If solar changes provided the dominant forcing, warming would be expected in both atmospheric layers. The observed contrast, however, is just that expected from the combination of greenhouse gas increases and stratospheric ozone decreases. This collective evidence, when subjected to careful statistical analyses, provides much of the basis for the increased confidence that human influences are behind the observed global warming. Suggestions that cosmic rays could affect clouds, and thereby climate, have been based on correlations using limited rec-ords; they have generally not stood up when tested with additional data, and their physical mechanisms remain speculative.

What about at smaller scales? As spatial and temporal scales decrease, attribution of climate change becomes more difficult. This problem arises because natural small-scale temperature variations are less “averaged out” and thus more readily mask the change signal. Nevertheless, continued warming means the signal is emerging on smaller scales. The report has found that human activity is likely to have influenced temperature significantly down to the continental scale for all continents except Antarctica."

Is global warming bad?

Back when the dinosaurs roamed Earth the temperature was significantly higher than it is now. The produced much lusher vegetation. Humans use greenhouses to grow food in conditions which would otherwise not permit it. That's the one question I don't see getting much attention. Most people assume climate change is necessarily bad. Is it?

Earth's climate has never been stable over extended periods. I am not taking a definitive side regarding anthropogenic climate change. IMO, there are simply too many open questions to make a conclusive determination. I'm not trying to change the subject. I simply don't have time to really get into an extended debate on the topic.

But the real concern from people such as Paul Craig Roberts and Alex Jones is not whether there is climate change, anthropogenic, or otherwise. The concern is whether the current progress toward a global carbon tax is really addressing the problem, or simply a power grab by the forces of global tyranny.

Yes, it is bad

The fact that your "opinion" is what matters over the research data is precisely the problem. It is exactly what the energy industry wants from the U.S. population: doubt.

The effects of global warming could be catastrophic with respect to disease, food production, mass migrations, resource wars, and the potential for the massive loss of human life and species extinctions. If in your world view these things aren't "bad" then that is your perspective, but I think it is a warped perspective.

I am not sure what PCRs position is on this topic, at least not clearly. As for Jones, I don't really take his analysis seriously as he never addresses these problems from a systemic analysis of capitalism, constantly using vague pronouncements about "global tyranny" and generalizations about elite motives.

A radical analysis of the problem would look at what drives fossil fuel consumption and production, and it is ultimately capitalist fetishes for consumption and an economic system that is designed for limitless growth on a finite planet, which has to be confronted and stopped. A global carbon tax is ultimately a band-aid solution for states to use to regulate capital (which is a fight between state power and corporations), and not something I think will either work or change the oppressive nature of the state and corporate structure.

Politics is the shadow cast by big business over society. By and large, Jones only notices the shadow and not the substance that creates the shadow, IMHO.

Skepticism is healthy

The fact that your "opinion" is what matters over the research data is precisely the problem. It is exactly what the energy industry wants from the U.S. population: doubt.

I started talking about global warming back in the early 1980s. My views have changes a lot since then. Mostly because I have spent more time studying climate archaeology. My original response to the claims of anthropogenic global warming was: "I told you so". But now, I have reason to be skeptical about both the causes and consequences of global warming.

Telling me that I should not doubt the claims of some body of authorities on an extremely complex and controversial matter is nonsense. I learned a long time ago that "experts" can be wrong. Even when they appear to have a super-majority bordering on consensus.

Consider the apparent consensus of the American Society of Civil Engineers regarding 9/11. What you don't see is that qualified engineers with dissenting opinions are excluded from the official communications of the Society.

I agree. Skepticism is healthy

I think the overall point you are trying to make is correct. Skepticism is healthy.

But I see a dynamic at work here that is similar in both the 911 Truth Movement and in the work done by scientists on global warming; namely, they are both going up against powerful and vested interests. They are both challenging state and corporate dogma, and ultimately challenging empire. It is not in the interests of the corporate state to allow scientists to mess up their profit flow on either issue.

What Jones et al misses is that capitalism and its most powerful adherents have no interest whatsoever in stopping fossil fuel production and use (by instituting some "world government tax"). 9/11 was used to justify imperial expansion in order to gain access to the most important commodity in the world: oil. Both 9/11 Truth and global warming proponents challenge the zeitgeist of the corporate state and empire.

9/11 Truth advocates and scientists working on global warming research are natural allies.

Carbon-based life vs The Powers That Be

"A radical analysis of the problem would look at what drives fossil fuel consumption and production, and it is ultimately capitalist fetishes for consumption and an economic system that is designed for limitless growth on a finite planet, which has to be confronted and stopped."

Yes, we must turn off the life support machines of people in hospital, and take the heat, food and water from the millions of people, uh I mean perverts, struggling to get by. For their own good.

"Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade"

At least oil is a real thing, the rapidly inflating 'carbon' markets are actually dealing in anti-carbon.

You seem to agree that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming believers don't encourage doubt (you even claim they shouldn't). I notice a few more similarities between the 911 OCT and CAGW:

Ridiculous computer models.
Secret 'working out'.
Ignoring of evidence.
No practical way to test many predictions/results (though both official theories have made claims now known to be false).
Claims of an existential threat.
Massive government propaganda/legislation in support of an official myth.
Government controlled 'scientists' leading to politicized 'science' (NIST/IPCC).
Support from both the mainstream and alternative media, including ridicule and demonizing of dissent.
Promoted by creepy foundations (PNAC/Council of Rome).
Creation of massive fake markets (Terrorism/Carbon trading).

The skeptics on 911 are the Truth Movement, and the skeptics on CAGW are the unbelievers, or 'deniers' as you would have it.

".. And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man, disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence."
Richard Lindzen - Resisting climate hysteria


You say, "Yes, we must turn off the life support machines of people in hospital, and take the heat, food and water from the millions of people, uh I mean perverts, struggling to get by. For their own good."

I am sorry, but that is just absurd. I never would say or suggest that. There are decentralized, renewable energy system alternatives to *unrenewable* fossil fuels.

You say, "Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade". I don't think you understood anything I have been saying, but it is obvious that the capitalist class will try to create a bubble off of carbon trading (and for that matter anything else). Keep in mind that what capitalists do in the markets is irrelevant to the data supporting anthropogenic warming.

I'll also note that you haven't addressed one issue I've raised with respect to the data and science, with respect to AGW. It's odd, I feel like I am arguing against a supporter of the 9/11 OCT here. I would say the same thing; namely, the data overwhelmingly supports AGW. I've given you two detailed links above that addresses this.

Responding to your other nonsense:

Ridiculous computer models.

-Are you suggesting that all computer models are ridiculous? I hope not. David Chandler uses them quite successfully. But, more importantly, the data supporting AGW is gathered by direct observation, not models. Computer models often try to predict future behavior, but that is not what is at issue here.

Secret 'working out'.

-I have no idea what this means.

Ignoring of evidence.

-What evidence? Please provide it and we'll look at it.

No practical way to test many predictions/results (though both official theories have made claims now known to be false).

-AGW isn't necessarily about future predictions, it's primarily about about current trends since the industrial revolution. It certainly doesn't hurt to make well reasoned predictions about where we are headed. But, we do have millions of data points collected from thousands of sources that demonstrate warming, especially when compared to the historical records. Like I said above, the data is both geographically and chronologically extensive.

Claims of an existential threat.

-I would point out that the 9/11 Truth movement, which I support, also recognizes an existential threat in the form of those responsible for the event. Melting glaciers that provide fresh water, in the case of Peru, is quite an existential threat, IMO.

Massive government propaganda/legislation in support of an official myth.

-That's pretty funny. Most governments are trying to AVOID any responsibility for passing legislation that would alter the economy or the corporate profits of energy companies, as demonstrated quite clearly by Copenhagen.

Government controlled 'scientists' leading to politicized 'science' (NIST/IPCC).

-IPCC is an international body of scientists that are NOT necessarily affiliated with governments. Do you just make this stuff up? Read this:

... including ridicule and demonizing of dissent.

-Sounds like the battle that most 9/11 Truth scientists have to face, and ironically, here in this forum. As mentioned above, most "dissent" on AGW comes from very rich corporations funding "deniers" that resort to ad hominem attacks. Lindzen is a perfect example: "Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services" (

Promoted by creepy foundations (PNAC/Council of Rome).

-link please?

Creation of massive fake markets (Terrorism/Carbon trading).

-Do you think the scientists that study AGW work on Wall Street? Like I said above, it's not mutually exclusive for AGW to be real and to see capitalists trying to profit off of another market.

Now as for RIchard Lindzen, he has been quite readily handled for his bizarre anti-science on this subject:

The guy is an ideologue and capitalist uber-alles cheerleader, writing screeds in the Wall Street Journal and the Cato Institute. No big surprises there.

Rome is obvious that the capitalist class will try to create a bubble..

If anything the 'capitalist class' engineered the scare, one reason being profit. See 'Nuclear Thatcher', bearing in mind that Thatcher was a puppet, like that one out of 'Saw'.

Keep in mind that what capitalists do in the markets is irrelevant to the data supporting anthropogenic warming.

I didn't say it was. Keep in mind you're the one who brought up capitalists.

Are you suggesting that all computer models are ridiculous?

Of course not. By the 'computer models' I mean the physical simulations of WTC7 and projected climate. Do you mean the graphing component of Physics Toolkit that David uses? Anyway they're ridiculous because they ignore evidence, disagree with observation, and are closed source, at least. We can't check how (or even if, as we can't test many results) they work. David shows us his method. It's not surprising they are wrong, as rendering simulations to a sufficient resolution for accurate predictions in these cases is intractable on current hardware.

I have no idea what this means [secret 'working out'].

It means many relevant algorithms and input data are kept secret.

What evidence? Please provide it and we'll look at it.

For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

Mann's hockey stick trick generates hockey sticks from red noise.

Do you have any graphs that show average global temperature over the last hundred, thousand, million, and billion years?

..we do have millions of data points collected from thousands of sources..

That's as low as 4G uncompressed by my reckoning, or less than a DVD. I don't think that amount of information is enough input data to predict global climate years into the future. Understandably, even the super computers have failed so far. They may have predicted warming, but it didn't happen. Why?

I would point out that the 9/11 Truth movement, which I support, also recognizes an existential threat in the form of those responsible for the event. Melting glaciers that provide fresh water, in the case of Peru, is quite an existential threat, IMO

True. But governments are pushing the threat of CAGW and Terrorism. Also I've seen news articles blaming cold weather on global warming, and you're ascribing anthropogenic causes to localized melting without any evidence.

Most governments are trying to AVOID any responsibility (...) as demonstrated quite clearly by Copenhagen.

Could you name a few governments that don't support CAGW?

IPCC is an international body of scientists that are NOT necessarily affiliated with governments.

Why call them an 'international body' when 'intergovernmental panel' would suffice, and is what IP actually stands for?

Sounds like the battle that most 9/11 Truth scientists have to face, and ironically, here in this forum.

I suppose we're all deniers here.

links please?

“The Earth has cancer, and the cancer is Man."
"The solution of these [overpopulation] crises can be developed only in a global context with full and explicit recognition of the emerging world system and on a long-term basis. This would necessitate, among other changes, a new world economic order and a global resources allocation system..." (CoR, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974)

"It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose."
"New enemies therefore have to be identified. New strategies imagined, new weapons devised."
"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. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
"The common enemy of humanity is man. "
"Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead." (CoR, The First Global Revolution, 1993)

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC, Rebuilding America's Defenses)

The Club of Rome are Malthusian; they wrote 'The Limits to Growth'. Note it's the 'Club' and not 'Council', that's something I seem unable to understand the first paragraph of.

Do you think the scientists that study AGW work on Wall Street?

Come on, you started all this capitalism malarkey, I reply with a similar point and you pull me up on it.. then use the capitalist-by-association tactic again on Lindzen. I couldn't find any actual criticism in the links you provided.

Do you assume the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century? Do you agree that if the CAGW lobby are (somehow) successful in stabilizing the average global temperature, that will make the future temperature record look nothing like the past?

As I said, Industry funded dissent

When I have more time, I will respond to your points in turn, most of which are baseless. When you refer to the motives of industry as "this capitalism malarkey" it is clear you fail to understand the power and motives of the energy industry which are crucial to understanding why the science behind anthropogenic warming is such a threat to their profits.

If you and your oil industry friends could go on polluting and destroying the environment, while supporting an economic system that is based on infinite growth (the "capitalism malarkey") on a finite planet, I am sure you'll do everything you can to discredit thousands of scientists and the scientific method which is the foundation for their consensus.

You reference Lindzen as a reputable source, a guy who charges the oil industry handsomely to speak against global warming. Further, if you paid attention, you would notice that a story just broke in regards to Koch Industries:

Report: Global Warming Skeptics Bankrolled by Koch Industries

A new report from Greenpeace has identified a privately owned US company with ties to the oil and chemical industry as the paymaster of global warming skeptics in the United States and Europe. According to Greenpeace, Koch Industries has spent nearly $48 million since 1997 to fund groups that question global warming.

You'll note that Cato received funds from Koch, and it so happens, Lindzen writes regular denial columns for Cato. It's all one big happy denial family.

Know your enemy

I look forward to your thoughts!

By malarkey I meant the game we seem to be playing about whether associating with capitalists is a legitimate argument. I thought you were switching positions, but now I see you have not stopped talking about capitalists all along.
I don't know what else to say on that, except to paraphrase yourself - "Do you think the scientists that don't believe in CAGW work on Wall Street?"

My motives aren't what you think they are.

Post normal 'science'

Maybe this was behind NIST's investigation of building 7?

"A revolution in science"
"The classic virtues of scientific objectivity, universality and disinterestedness can no longer be claimed to be automatically effective as the essential properties of scientific knowledge."
"And there is no better place to start this revolution than with climate science. After all, it is claimed, there is no more pressing global political challenge than this. But might this episode signify something more in the unfolding story of climate change - maybe the start of a process of re-structuring scientific knowledge?"

Note that in the photo Trinidad and Tobago are leaving Sarkozy's ear to our right, propelling his head to our left. Does that make him postmodern?

"They called it PNS (post-normal science) and hoped we wouldn’t notice. It was thus named and explicated by Silvio O. Funtowicz and philosopher Jerome R. Ravetz, who in 1991 wrote the paper A New Scientific Methodology for Global Environmental Issues, followed in 1992 by The good, the true and the postmodern, and in 1993 by Science for the post-normal age, where they promoted the idea that

'…a new type of science – ‘post-normal’ – is emerging…in contrast to traditional problem-solving strategies, including core science, applied science, and professional consultancy…Post-normal science can provide a path to the democratization of science, and also a response to the current tendencies to post-modernity.'

The ‘response’ wasn’t to be a reaction against postmodernism, but an embracing of it, and going beyond it. And it has sinister ramifications."

Good Bye???

PCR has been one of my favorite truth tellers, especially given his paleo-conservative credentials which make it so much easier to approach others new to 9/11 who come from a business or conservative background - and unlike Ron Paul expresses clearly his views on 9/11. I couldn't help but empathize with his facial expressions especially at the end of this Russia TV interview which convey a sense of disbelief verging on giddy hysteria for being so clearly sane in a world so clearly gone mad, all the while wanting to cry. . He has been such a prolific contributer to sane reflection on the state of the world/America/economy... I hope this doesn't mean we won't hear more from him.

Unfortunately for now

'Roberts has also told us that he will probably appear as a guest on The Alex Jones Show later next week to expand on why he has decided to “sign off” ...'


Excellent essay as usual by Paul Craig Roberts. He also recently wrote this piece at Global Research that has more 9/11 content.

Tell it like it is

' the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory'

Thank you so much, Paul Craig Roberts, for calling the official story exactly what it is--a conspiracy theory (and not a very sensible one at that).

' It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based.'

Once again, thank you. Now, some activists might deny that they accept this premise ('I'm opposed to how they've used 9/11,' they will say). But the great failure in that case is that, even while not necessarily accepting that premise, they say nothing to challenge it, even though it is so eminently challengeable--and has had such demonstrably disastrous results when left unchallenged by so many.

Paul Craig Roberts

deserves a better stage with more audience members. I really enjoy his writings, but I don't think he reaches many new minds.

And what are we going to do about it?

After more than eight years of reporting and investigating September 11, I was tempted to give up on 9/11 truth years ago, but made a commitment in 1999 to report on such critical news until at least December 21, 2012. Time is closing in to another era; I am open for an amazing transformation in government, and environment, or by then will have to reassess any optimism-hope for real change, except the demise of life as we know it on Earth.

Meanwhile what can we do about these times of universal deceit? Like Paul Craig Roberts I suggest citizens everywhere go on record. I know those who frequent 911blogger are already active, on record, but we need to also inspire others, which is why I suggest filing evidence of the crimes of 9/11/01 into your local court systems, and write letters to your local newspaper to help inspire others, Misprision of treason citizens action.

Show "Good Lord! What an ego." by NYCGuy

Genuflecting would be appropriate for you to learn, NYCGuy!

Genuflecting can help instill a humble attitude.
Paul Craig Roberts has shown a very humble attitude, and has been a very influential scholar early in the 9/11 Truth movement.
Read his article once again, and follow his example, we will come a long way that way!
Read his contributions for the last 10 years, done by a scholar and highly paid journalist, who kept getting fired from highly paid editorial positions because the truth he wrote was not pleasing to the main-stream criminally complicit journals he wrote in.
I bow down deeply to M. Paul Crai Roberts, and consider him one of the most important scholars and writers of America of these last 7 years.
I hope MANY will follow in his resolution to bring back dignity to our Nation !

Dr Beeth, Brussels

"unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory. If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man." (Harold Pinter)

I genuflect in church and before the Queen- -

-- not self-centered egoists. (Mirror handy?)

I, too, think Mr. Roberts is an important writer. But, please, spare me the melodrama of "putting down my pen," when there's work to do. Humble attitude? I laugh.

Spare me the "they'll see now," implications of not having His prose anymore.

And most of all, spare me your shrill lecturing, quotes of Pinter, etc.

May I point out that Mr. Roberts, as superior a human as you may think him to be, is just that-- human.

Which Queen?

Do you mean the Queen of the UK/Commonwealth? Surely there is some evidence to suggest she is a 'self centered egoist'?

Wow. There REALLY IS cencorship on this site!

I never thought, as a true 9/11 "Truther," for five years, present at Ground Zero just hours after the first plane hit, would be censored because he didn't kiss the butt of Mr. Roberts.


Careful... that slope can be slippery.

Roberts Harsh But Fair!

"America’s fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government’s account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media. It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based."

Maybe it's not quite sealed yet...well lets hope!

Regards John