Holocaust Or Hoax? - The Global
Warming Debate Heats Up

By Leland Lehrman

I've watched the global warming debate with one rather confused eye for years. As an active environmentalist and ecologist, I recognize that humankind's actions have often verged on the collectively sado-masochistic, with Mother Earth and Her creatures often bearing the worst of the pain. I am not predisposed to believe in the infallibility of the human species, nor that technology is always good; quite the contrary. In fact, I am extremely environmentally sensitive, with an acute personal awareness and susceptibility to pollution, pesticide and harmful food products.
For some time, it was vogue to talk about climate change, rather than global warming, as warming was apparently not provable. And there is abundant evidence that climate change over the eons has destroyed civilizations, sunken continents and created new ones. Indigenous and ancient prophecy suggesting that Mother Earth or God may be consciously involved with such cleansing operations does not strike me as implausible. And yet, recently, I decided that hoping Mother Earth will simply wash away the pestilence of human civilization would throw out the baby with the bath water. I am a firm believer in the political solution, and will leave divine intervention to its own time. The problem is that as I analyze the emerging publicity around global warming I find disturbing evidence of a cynical, elitist manipulation of human gullibility - ostensibly in the public interest - which could lead towards devastating and entirely inhumane, even genocidal policies. Of all the dangerous gases human beings create, carbon dioxide is hardly first on the list of those I would target. Mercury maybe, or depleted uranium dust; how about pesticides or the aerosols sprayed by aircraft? There are plenty of known poisons requiring urgent remediation solutions.
As you look at some of the information below, you will find that the link between human CO2 levels and global warming may not be scientifically proven. However, by monetizing CO2 emissions, the global elite have come upon a way to create a global marketplace for the atmosphere. In other words, by cynically manipulating the public's desire to do the right thing, elite bankers and their cronies in the energy companies are putting the final nail into the coffin of the commons.
Let's start with the infamous 1992 quote of Richard Sandor, Chairman and CEO of the Chicago Climate Exchange, the commercial brainchild of Al Gore's supposedly well-intentioned efforts to alert the world to "global warming:"
"Air and water are no longer the free goods that economics once assumed. They must be redefined as property rights so that they can be efficiently allocated."
The whole notion of property rights is alien to those who have found solace and sanity in the indigenous belief in the innate unownability of the sacred universe. On the other hand, protecting property rights is certainly understandable when it comes down to holding on to your farm in the face of predatory lending, eminent domain, a racist "right of return" policy, or some other corrupt scheme to steal from the weak or honest.
Nevertheless, the implications of Mr. Sandor's remarks are devastating. Namely, in the future, the one with the money will be the one with the right to travel, create electricity and pollute. Since the gentle reader will by now already be aware that the creation of currency has largely been privatized by the international banking system and operates without oversight either here in America or abroad, the stark reality that those who print money seek to own the atmosphere and water of our planet becomes altogether too much to ignore.
Adding to my confusion, the normally reputable and fearless Alex Jones and his brilliant young British colleague Paul Joseph Watson of recently attacked both the science and the policy objectives behind global warming. They cited a perceptive article by Daniel Taylor which spells out concerns which I share:
"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "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... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself"
Today, global warming and climate change in general have become foundational issues for one of the largest political movements of our time. As more focus is placed on global warming, the solutions which are being presented to the world often have nothing to do with what many are saying is the root cause of the problem. Scientific evidence has emerged, highlighted in the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which supports the theory that the sun is in fact a major driving force behind global warming. Ice core samples show that CO2 levels (which are blamed by many to be the initiating force behind a rise in global temperature) rise 800 years after an initial rise in temperature. Other data gathered regarding solar activity show a clear connection between fluctuations in the sun's activity and temperature variations on earth. If the sun is in fact the culprit for changes in the earth's temperature, world taxes, global government and other solutions we are being given are not cutting to the root cause of climate change
Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article 'State Sovereignty Must be Altered in Globalized Era,' that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. 'Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function,' says Haass. 'Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves...' Everyone, regardless of your position on global warming or the environment, must take into consideration the solutions that we are being given, as well as the forces behind them which seek to create a global system of domination and control."
I ran the above and one of the scientific papers on the subject by the brilliant and dedicated Ben Luce, director of the Coalition for Clean and Affordable Energy in New Mexico. This was the essence of his reply, for which I was thankful: "Of course the globalist elite will try to use global warming as an excuse to achieve their aims! Every political power tries to exploit current events for their own favor. Witness how the nuclear power industry is also exploiting global warming for its own benefit. But this has nothing to do whatsoever with whether or not global warming is being caused by the incredibly massive emissions of carbon dioxide by human civilization, and whether or not global warming is pretty much about to destroy what's left of the biodiversity and health of the biosphere. The scientific evidence for these are overwhelming - all one has to do is look at it with one's own eyes.
And it's also clear that corporations such as Exxon, Peabody Energy, etc, have funded very aggressive efforts to suppress public awareness and reaction to this evidence. That is also well documented. It should be kept in mind that these corporations are not necessarily identical with the globalists who might seek to exploit global warming for their own purposes.
If some anti-globalists conclude that global warming is just a big hoax by the globalists, and decide that we don't need to act to stop global warming, then they are just playing into the hands of one set of corporations to avoid being exploited by another. The real trick is to promote solutions that don't play into the hands of either. Not to say this is easy, given the power of the elite, and the power of the fossil fuel industry. But its the only way out."
But when I asked Ben to analyze the science behind the famous "hockey-stick" graph on the front cover and reproduced here, Ben was too busy. I understand. But I am concerned enough to publish the raw data, and let you, the reader, decide for yourself.
The graphs on the front cover of this issue are extremely important to understand, which is why I have included them again here. The first one is a 1996 United Nations graph showing the medieval warming period. The second is the extremely angular 2001 "hockey stick" graph without the medieval warming period. This graph supposedly demonstrates that global warming is a phenomenon associated strictly with the industrial revolution and the skyrocketing use of fossil fuels for energy. The 2001 report asserts that the medieval warming period was fiction, and that its inclusion in 1996 was erroneous. However, the scientists at have assembled a massive amount of data supporting the presence of the medieval warming period. The problem with the medieval warming period is that if it existed, then the industrial use of CO2 emitting fossil fuels cannot be considered the sole or even dominant cause of global warming.
Furthermore the 1996 report specifically warned against the type of dataset that was ultimately used for the creation of the "hockey-stick graph." And this is where the plot thickens, because according to several distinguished meteorologists and climatologists, the UN's 2001 report - on which the entire "Inconvenient Truth" of global warming is based - relies on defective, perhaps even cooked data.
Enter the Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, whose paper on the topic appeared in London's Sunday Telegraph. In it he brought to my attention the fact that there is indeed a scientific crisis of confidence underlying the political one. Here's what Monckton said about the data used to justify the "hockey stick" graph and the ensuing hysteria and carbon trading projects:
"The UN's 2001 graph, variously known as the "hockey-stick" or "foxtail" or "J-curve", had first appeared in Nature (Mann et al., 1998) and, the following year, in Geophysical Review Letters (Mann et al., 1999). After its appearance in the UN's 2001 report, McIntyre et al. (2003, 2005) demonstrated that the erasure of the mediaeval warm period in the 2001 graph had been caused by inappropriate data selection and incorrect use of statistical methods.
The first mistake made by Mann et al. and copied by the UN in 2001 lay in the choice of proxy data. The UN's 1996 report had recommended against reliance upon bristlecone pines as proxies for reconstructing temperature, because 20th-century carbon-dioxide fertilization accelerated annual growth and caused a false appearance of exceptional recent warming.
Notwithstanding the warning against reliance upon bristlecones in UN 1996, Mann et al. had relied chiefly upon a series of bristlecone-pine datasets for their reconstruction of mediaeval temperatures. Worse, their statistical model had given the bristlecone-pine datasets 390 times more prominence than the other datasets they had used. To McIntyre et al., it appeared possible that Mann et al. had given the tainted bristlecone data series such exceptional prominence, effectively swamping all influence from the other datasets in their calculations, because the bristlecone-pine dataset produced the pronounced 20th-century uptick (and a corresponding suppression of evidence for mediaeval high temperatures), which would apparently eradicate the mediaeval warm period
McIntyre et al. (2003, 2005) also tested the algorithm of Mann et al. (1998, & UN, 2001) without the bristlecone-pine data, whereupon the mediaeval warm period reappeared. They also found that Mann et al. had excluded from their calculations a single dataset covering the later mediaeval warm period, which had been stored in a computer file marked "CENSORED_DATA". McKitrick et al. ran the Mann et al. model including the missing dataset, and again found that the mediaeval warm period reappeared.
Several eminent scientists have commented on the work of McIntyre and McKitrick. For instance, Philip Muller (2004), a physicist at Berkeley, said that the two Canadian scientists' work ­ "hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics." Dr. Rob van Dorland, of the Dutch National Meteorological Agency, has said: "It is strange that the climate reconstruction of Mann passed both peer review rounds of the IPCC without anyone ever really having checked it."
In February 2005 the German television channel Das Erste interviewed Ulrich Cubasch, a climatologist, who said that he had been unable to reproduce the Mann et al. "hockey-stick" graph, whereupon he ­ " discussed the objections with his colleagues, and sought to work them through. Bit by bit, it became as clear to his colleagues as it had to him: the two Canadians were right. Between 1400 and 1600, the temperature shift was considerably higher than, for example, in the previous century. With that, the core conclusion, and also that of the entire IPCC 2001 Report, was completely undermined."
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, director emeritus of the Royal Meteorological Institute of the Netherlands, wrote to Dr. McIntyre in 2005 to say: 'The IPCC review process is totally flawed. The scientific basis for the Kyoto Protocol is grossly inadequate.'
However, the fact that the central graph of the UN's 2001 report was defective has not had anything like as much attention from the media as the stories of impending disaster which politicians ­ and the UN itself ­ have derived from itThis defective graph is the only figure which was featured as many as six times in the UN's 2001 report, appearing with great prominence and in full colour on each occasion. The centrality of its importance to the case for alarm may be judged not only from the frequency and prominence of its appearance in the UN's 2001 report but also from the following conclusion, which appears in the Summary for Policymakers:
"New analyses of proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years. It is also likely that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year... Because less data are available, less is known about annual averages prior to 1,000 years before present and for conditions prevailing in most of the Southern Hemisphere prior to 1861."
The UN relied not only upon the flawed Mann et al. reconstruction but also upon a series of similar papers contributed to scientific journals, which seemed to support the abolition of the mediaeval warm period, as a report by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee (Lords 2005) pointed out. However, an independent report by statisticians (US Senate 2005), perhaps the most devastating scientific criticism yet leveled at the UN on climate change, concluded not only that the UN's 2001 temperature reconstruction had used inappropriate statistical methods and data but also that many of the supporting scientific papers, both before and after the 2001 report, had been written by a small and closely-connected group of palaeoclimatologists, who effectively dominated their field worldwide, and were all intimately linked to the principal author of the UN's 2001 graph.
It was not until prolonged pressure had been exerted upon the editors of Nature that a (less than complete) corrigendum was published (Mann et al., 2004). Not only Nature but also other leading peer-reviewed scientific journals had refused to publish the first paper by McIntyre et al. (2003) exposing the flawed graph. Eventually, Geophysical Review Letters (McIntyre et al., 2005) had the courage to break ranks and publish the truth.
The US National Academy of Sciences has since issued a statement that the "hockey-stick" graph was defective. Significantly, however, the UN has issued no statement of apology or correction. It continues to use the "hockey-stick" in its publications."
Elitists, if confronted with no recourse, might say that perhaps global warming is a "noble lie," like Iraqi WMDs. It's the environmental 9/11. They might say, "but the Earth is dying and we had to figure out some way to save it(without giving up our control over it, of course)." But I have never seen deception result in goodness before, and I don't expect to now. Furthermore, how can one take seriously the empathic capability of British Petroleum's Chief Executive Peter Sutherland who, in a speech to his elitist cohorts in the Trilateral Commission, "issued a 'Universal battle cryfor the world to address "global warming" with a single voice?'" Then there's General Lord Guthrie, director of the ultra-elitist financier operation N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to "address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide."
According to Richard Freeman and Merry Baker in their enlightening article "Carbon Trade Swindle Behind Gore Hoax," here's what the global warming sales pitch is designed to create: "The centerpiece of the U.S. emerging market for carbon emissions trading, is the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), created in 2003 as a "voluntary," or pilot agency, part of a London-based network positioned to reproduce the oil bubble on a scale orders of magnitude greater and more dangerous, while at the same time, destroying what's left of the physical economy.
The idea is that if governments cap CO2 emissions, then the "market" will take off for the buying and selling of emissions "allowances." This is the whole point of the "cap-and-trade" plan for CO2. If it sounds crazy, it is. But Gore is just one of the most visible parts of the elaborate (and bi-partisan) schemes that have been set in motion under cover of climate change. Gore's personal financial involvement is blatant, especially through Goldman Sachs-a large shareholder of CCX, and in 2004, the creator of Gore's very own London-based hedge fund, Generation Investment Management.
CCX has multiple interconnections with the London-run Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE), whose subsidiary is the International Petroleum Exchange, the world's largest petroleum futures and options market. The dirty details of ICE and the Great Oil Price Swindle came out extensively at a May 8, 2006 Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing, where Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that futures speculation on the ICE was the driver for adding $20 to 25 to the price of every barrel of oil"
The carbon swap / global warming advertising campaign psyop reminds me of internet spam plugging unknown penny stocks. But this is a professional racket, a really good one. I'm not sure I'll be buying carbon swaps. Will you? We're better off spending time in the garden.
Arwen Gwyneth Hubbard and Skip Whitson contributed to this article. Leland Lehrman can be reached at or 982-3609



This Site Served by TheHostPros