THE REAL FORCE BEHIND THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM From the usedbrainacademy.com website.

THE GOLDEN GOOSE A popular axiom of investigation is “follow the money,” so let us do just that. The first massive infusion of government influence into theoretical science in the U.S. culminated in a very bright flash over Hiroshima in 1945. Following the success of the Manhattan Project the federal government sought to institutionalize the relationship between science and national policy in part by providing funding for research. Remember, “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” President Roosevelt authorized his science advisor Vannevar Bush to initiate the series of events that resulted in the National Science Foundation and other avenues of outlay for federal support of scientific research. - The majority of the funding for climate science research comes from such sources, so far about $20 billion since 1988. Scientists must compete for this largesse; departures from the paradigm receive less attention and therefore less funding. (emphasis added) - The media is complicit in this by focusing its attention on the most extreme and lurid of the climate scenarios offered by researchers; these enjoy the greatest, and in some cases the only, attention, and this prompts further funding. This is a classic example of a “positive feed-back loop”, a directional, self-reinforcing set of reactions much like a thermostat set to turn the heat on when the temperature rises above 75° - it just keeps going. - The fire is further fanned by well funded eco-advocacy groups who promote the alarmist paradigm for their own purposes, and support a small but very mobile and very vocal activist network. This may prompt one to ask, “Why would the government spend billions of dollars and initiate drastic policy when the bulk of evidence insists that no credible threat exists and no ‘policy’ can have any significant effect on the situation?” THREATS OTHER THAN WAR After the U.S., and the world, had been maneuvered into two great wars and had since begun the process of diluting and relinquishing many aspects of national sovereignty in the name of “peace”, it became apparent that people were reluctant to surrender liberty and empower government in the absence of a threat to that peace. The globalist elements in our leadership sought sources of intimidation other than war to capture public imagination and continue the climate of dependence on government intervention so carefully cultivated in the first half of the 20th century. In 1966, an interesting publication appeared titled The Report From Iron Mountain. It is a detailed study for planned crisis in a world where major war is a thing of the past. Some other peril must be fabricated to instill the fear necessary for continued growth of government in a world without war. Some have speculated that it is a leaked government study from the Hudson Institute commissioned by Robert McNamara's Defense Department. Others claim it to be an elaborate hoax by giddy anti-war academics. Regardless of its origins, it seems apparent that its basic tenets have been adopted as policy by establishment operatives. In the words of the report, "substitutes for the functions of war . . . alternate enemies" such as "massive global environmental pollution" must be concocted to justify the ever expanding role of government. Like any organism, government seeks to feed and to grow, and the time tested means to insure this is to instill fear. (emphasis added) Massive global destruction is a useful vehicle for that purpose. THE GREEN CURTAIN In the 1960’s, Jerry Kirk was an activist with radical left-wing organizations such as the Black Panthers and the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). As he testified before both the House and Senate Internal Security Committees, he broke from those socialist-centered organizations when he discovered that they were in fact largely funded by the establishment that he thought he had been opposing. Then, as now, the power structure provided the cause for discontent, financed the opposition to that cause, and finally proposed the solution - more government, more control. Environmental groups are heavily funded by tax-exempt foundations with names like Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Alcoa, and Hewlett. In 1953 the U.S. House of Representatives began an investigation of the large foundations due to their repeated support of radical, subversive organizations. The Reece Committee appointed Norman Dodd as Research Director for the investigation. In a conversation with Mr. Dodd, H. Rowan Gaither, then President of the powerful Ford Foundation, informed the investigator that the U.S. State Department and other federal agencies had been operating for years under directives from the White House “to so alter life in the United States as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union ... We are continuing to be guided by just such directives.” At least in name, the Soviet Union no longer exists, but the push to merge America with foreign interests continues, using the endless wealth of tax-exempt foundations controlled by ambitious globalists. And just as in the 1960s, emotional liberals and radicals of all stripes are the tools, complicit or unwitting, of the establishment elite that has been quietly manipulating the economy, politics, and social turmoil of America for the past century. THE BOY WHO CRIED WARMING Perhaps the most important single factor in stirring the stew of global warming fear was the June 23, 1988 testimony before Congress by James Hansen of NASA. He assured those legislators that he was “99 percent sure” that anthropogenic causes were responsible for the climate extremes being experienced at the time. Hansen’s words started the flow of lucre that became a $20 billion flood. Dr. Hansen changed his tune by 1999. Here are some examples: - ”The forces that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.” – 1999 - ”Future global warming can be predicted much more accurately than is generally realized ... we predict additional warming in the next 50 years of ¾°C ± ¼°C, a warming rate of 0.15°C ± 0.05°C per decade.” - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2001 - ”Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.” - Natural Science INSTITUTIONALIZED EXAGGERATION The nearly universal tendency for hyperbole among global warming alarmists is perhaps best summed up by Stephen Schneider of Stanford University in comments made in 1988: “We are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing buts... On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based public support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical blind” that we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” (emphasis added) This kind of attitude may explain why the truth is such an elusive quality in modern climate science reporting. The next few slides are prominent examples of how this “double ethical blind” has indeed blinded some scientists to their ethical duty to truth.

For PowerPoint slides and further information, visit the: usedbrainacademy.com website. Back to the home page from here.