noworldsystem.com


Obama Plans 10 Million Acre Land Grab

Obama Plans 10 Million Acre Land Grab

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBr5tAq8fjk

 



Obama Admin. Orders World Bank to Keep Third World in Poverty

Obama Admin. Orders World Bank to Keep Third World in Poverty

Paul Joseph Watson
prisonplanet.com
January 26, 2010

Under the provably fraudulent and completely corrupted justification of fighting global warming, the Obama administration has ordered the World Bank to keep “developing” countries underdeveloped by blocking them from building coal-fired power plants, ensuring that poorer countries remain in poverty as a result of energy demands not being met.

Even amidst the explosive revelations of the United Nations IPCC issuing reports on the Himalayan Glaciers and the Amazon rainforest littered with incorrect data, the U.S. government has “Stepped up pressure on the World Bank not to fund coal-fired power plants in developing countries,” reports the Times of India.

The order was made by U.S. Executive Director of the World Bank Whitney Debevoise, who represents the United States in considering all loans, investments, country assistance strategies, budgets, audits and business plans of the World Bank Group entities.

By preventing poor nations from becoming self-sufficient in blocking them from producing their own energy, the Obama administration is ensuring that millions more will die from starvation and lack of access to hospitals and medical treatment.

Not only does strangling the energy supply to poorer countries prevent adequate food distribution and lead to more starvation, but hospitals and health clinics in the third world are barely even able to operate as a result of the World Bank and other global bodies ordering them to be dependent on renewable energy supplies that are totally insufficient.

A prime example appeared in the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, which highlighted how a Kenyan health clinic could not operate a medical refrigerator as well as the lights at the same time because the facility was restricted to just two solar panels.

“There’s somebody keen to kill the African dream. And the African dream is to develop,” said author and economist James Shikwati. “I don’t see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry … We are being told, ‘Don’t touch your resources. Don’t touch your oil. Don’t touch your coal.’ That is suicide.”

The program labels the idea of restricting the world’s poorest people to alternative energy sources as “the most morally repugnant aspect of the global warming campaign.”

As we have previously highlighted, the implementation of policies arising out of fraudulent fearmongering and biased studies on global warming is already devastating the third world, with a doubling in food prices causing mass starvation and death.

Poor people around the world, “Are being killed in large numbers by starvation as a result of (climate change) policy,” climate skeptic Lord Monckton told the Alex Jones Show last month, due to huge areas of agricultural land being turned over to the growth of biofuels.

“Take Haiti where they live on mud pie with real mud costing 3 cents each….that’s what they’re living or rather what they’re dying on,” said Monckton, relating how when he gave a speech on this subject, a lady in the front row burst into tears and told him, “I’ve just come back from Haiti – now because of the doubling in world food prices, they can’t even afford the price of a mud pie and they’re dying of starvation all over the place.”

As a National Geographic Report confirmed, “With food prices rising, Haiti’s poorest can’t afford even a daily plate of rice, and some must take desperate measures to fill their bellies,” by “eating mud,” partly as a consequence of “increasing global demand for biofuels.”

In April 2008, World Bank President Robert Zoellick admitted that biofuels were a “significant contributor” to soaring food prices that have led to riots in countries such as Haiti, Egypt, the Philippines, and even Italy.

“We estimate that a doubling of food prices over the last three years could potentially push 100 million people in low-income countries deeper into poverty,” he stated.

Even if we are to accept that fact that overpopulation will be a continuing problem in the third world, the very means by which poorer countries would naturally lower their birth rates, by being allowed to develop their infrastructure, is being blocked by global institutions who craft policies designed to keep the third world in squalor and poverty.

This goes to the very heart of what the real agenda behind the global warming movement really is – a Malthusian drive to keep the slaves oppressed and prevent the most desperate people on the planet from pulling themselves out of destitution and despair.

UN Troops Pepper Spray Starving Haitians

Haiti earthquake – starving survivors reduced to eating grass

One quarter of US grain crops fed to cars – not people

Third World Under Attack From Genocidal Climate Change Policy

Food Shortages Or Globalist Depopulation Agenda?

 



The Church of Global Warming

The Church of Global Warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QL_HaYgLYA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkLOLFBRXVs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lE81_rWvZU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV2Wp3BpDKU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qZvCpWM6uA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0iOvWlR6qE

 



Copenhagen Treaty Creates Global Government Tax

Copenhagen Treaty Creates Global Government Tax

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
December 9, 2009

Lord Christopher Monckton warns that the secretive draft version of the Copenhagen climate change treaty represents a global government power grab on an “unimaginable scale,” and mandates the creation of 700 new bureaucracies as well as a colossal raft of new taxes including 2 percent levies on both GDP and every international financial transaction.

Speaking with The Alex Jones Show, Monckton, who is in Copenhagen attending the UN climate summit, said that when he attempted to obtain a copy of the current draft of the negotiating text agreement, he was initially rebuffed before he threatened an international diplomatic incident unless the document was forthcoming.

“I insisted and it took about 10 minutes and they consulted each other with three or four of them arguing over it – none of them would produce the document….I said I know this treaty exists because this is what the conference is all about,” said Monckton.

Only after Monckton threatened repercussions was he handed the the current draft of the treaty, and the details it contained are perhaps a clue as to why the UN officials were so keen to keep it under wraps.

“Once again they are desperately trying to conceal from everybody here the magnitude of what they’re attempting to do – they really are attempting to set up a world government,” said Monckton, adding that the word “government” was no longer used but the process of further centralization of power into global hands was clearly spelled out in the treaty.

Monckton said that the new world government outlined in the treaty would be handed powers to, “Tax the American economy to the extent of 2 percent GDP, to impose a further tax of 2 percent on every financial transaction….and to close down effectively the economies of the west, transfer your jobs to third world countries – all of that is still in the treaty draft.”

As the leaked document out of Copenhagen reported on by the London Guardian revealed yesterday, this massive new system of global taxation will be paid not to the UN, but directly into the coffers of the World Bank.

“The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions,” reported the Guardian.

Monckton illustrated the size of the new taxes being proposed by noting they amounted to at least half of the entire US defense budget.

“This is how they are going to fund this vast new government they’re setting up,” said Monckton, adding that he counted around 700 new bureaucracies that would be created as a result of the treaty, which would be bankrolled by taxpayers even outside of the raft of new taxes the treaty would create.

Monckton outlined how the new taxes would be enforced, stating, “They’re going to auction allowances to emit greenhouse gases and if you don’t buy an allowance to emit greenhouse gases, you won’t be allowed to emit them,” adding that the text contained a provision for a “uniform global levy of $2 dollars per ton of CO2 for all fossil fuel emissions,” as well as an additional tax on every commercial plane journey, except ones that go in or out of poorer countries.

There would also be a “global levy on international monetary transactions – that means every transfer of money across borders will be taxed,” said Monckton, adding that this would be on top of the GDP tax.

 

Lord Monckton: Obama may sign a “Copenhagen Agreement” instead of Treaty

LifeSiteNews
December 9, 2009

In a brief video released on the Internet, Lord Christopher Monkton is seen giving a speech today in Copenhagen warning that President Obama will try to use his Executive Authority to sign an agreement, rather than a treaty, to commit the United States to undertake measures against climate change that will seriously damage the freedoms and prosperity of America.

Monkton states, “President Obama is going to come here (Copenhagen) and sign the Copenhagen Agreement.” He says it’s no longer being called a treaty specifically because US Senators “know they can’t get a treaty through the US Senate.” Monkton continues explaining, “so, President Obama is going to sign this agreement by his executive authority and he will then put it through both houses of Congress by a vote of simple majority.”

Monkton states that this executive agreement will stand “with almost the same force as a treaty” under the US Constitution. The one large difference, Monkton however notes, is that an Executive Agreement can be repealed by a following president, but a treaty cannot be repealed. Therefore, The British Lord and science adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher noted, “one power that President Obama does not have is to commit the United States unilaterally to measures of a scale and horror envisaged in this treaty or agreement…”

The recent “climategate” revelations provided the basis for especially condemning closing comments from the internationally famous climate sceptic and campaigner against climate hysteria.

Monkton emphasized, “there is no longer any basis whatsoever for saying that any action is required over the climate. We have seen now in the climategate that a couple of dozen bad and extremely malevolent and unpleasant scientists – this clique, this cabal, this conspiracy, because that is what it is, have tried to bend, fiddle and fudge the data, year after year and they’ve now been caught and exposed by the activities of one gallant whistleblower at this very moment when we now know that the climate fraud is the fraud that we all expected it to be.”

Monckton concluded with a warning that the president, “either unaware or aware and uncaring wishes to sign” American “freedom and prosperity away.”

See Lord Monkton’s detailed, one hour, fascinating expose of climate change

Also see Lord Monkton interview on Michael Coren television program

UK’s richest man could make more than £1bn from carbon trading scheme

Abbott warns of $400bn tax bill under draft Copenhagen agreement

 



EPA to Bypass Congress to Regulate CO2

EPA to Bypass Congress to Regulate CO2

NoWorldSystem.com
December 8, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5At6a3c4eVE

The EPA declares itself the regulator of CO2 emissions, allowing itself to cut CO2 emissions without the approval of Congress, bypassing legislation that is currently stalled in the Senate.

Obama’s administration formally declared that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant and will “endanger the public health and welfare of the American people” empowering the EPA to regulate across the country under the law of the Clean Air Act that seeks emissions cut by roughly 17 percent by 2020.

The ruling was welcomed at the opening day of the talk in the Danish capital; “This is very significant in the sense that if…the Senate fails to adopt legislation (on emissions), then the administration will have the authority to regulate,” Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, told Reuters in Copenhagen.

But top congressional republican James Inhofe warned that EPA’s new “endangerment finding” will “lead to a wave of new regulations, new bureaucracy that will wreak havoc on the American economy and destroy millions of jobs and of course consumers to pay more for electricity and gasoline”. Many republicans are calling for the EPA to rebuke its claims that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81RaMybU1ug

Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator said the move to declare CO2 a toxic pollutant “relied on decades of sound, peer-reviewed, extensively evaluated scientific data”. Jackson denied any manipulation was carried out by the ClimateGate scientists saying that there’s “nothing in the hacked emails that undermines the science upon which this decision is based”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1goTq3-rk

President Barack Obama and Al Gore will be attending the Copenhagen conference late next week to further push the illusion that CO2 is a toxic gas. On the same day of the EPA’s announcement, Al Gore visited the White House.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js8stuihg4M

The Copenhagen globalists including the EPA base their entire argument on the back of the UNIPCC’s CRU scientists which are involved in one of the greatest scandals in modern science, ClimateGate which consists of; Manipulation, Deception, Suppression of Evidence, including having AGW-skeptics fired and removed from the peer-reviewed process and of course breaking FOIA requests by deleting emails and urging other scientists to do so as well. [Source]

With that in mind, EPA’s decision to call CO2 a dangerous pollutant falls flat on its face. The entire Copenhagen summit is all about creating another bubble by the same crooks that gave us the dot-com bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis; Enron and Goldman Sachs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA6FSy6EKrM

From a massive cap-and-trade derivatives scheme, to a global carbon tax, this is all about plummeting what’s left of the U.S. economy and shutting down life on the planet by reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

WITHOUT CO2 THERE IS NO LIFE!

“CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food,” notes John R. Christy, professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Alabama. “The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPNiBVU2QIA

In fact, as S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia has noted, an increase in CO2 would raise GNP and therefore average income. “It’s axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency,” writes Singer.

The EPA is may soon be tasked with regulating life in the United States at the behest of a coterie of globalists who are keen to limit economic and industrial activity and check the growth of the herd which they despise and want to scale back to 500 million, as they have proudly announced on the Georgia Guidestones. [Source]

 

Fox News Analysis: ClimateGate, EPA Ruling, Copenhagen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp9ABzPgC5g

 



ClimateGate CRU Sought Funds From Shell Oil

ClimateGate CRU Sought Funds From Shell Oil

News Busters
December 5, 2009

The Climatic Research Unit at the heart of the ClimateGate scandal sought funds from Shell Oil in the year 2000.

Other e-mail messages obtained from the University of East Anglia’s computers also showed officials at the school’s CRU solicited support from ExxonMobil and BP Amoco, although the nature of this support was not identified.

As climate alarmists and their media minions love to claim that global warming skeptics are all paid shills of Big Oil, it makes one wonder how the press will report these startling revelations discovered by Anthony Watts Friday:

Mick Kelley to Mike Hulme

    Mike
    Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
    agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
    partner and will contribute to a studentship fund
    though under certain
    conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
    after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
    asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
    etc. By email? In person?
    I hear that Shell’s name came up at the TC meeting. I’m ccing this to Tim
    who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
    make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
    I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team but this approach
    will do equally for the new foundation as it’s only one step or so off
    Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
    what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
    new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s
    within the remit.
    Regards
    Mick

Earlier that same year, the recipient of this e-mail message, Mike Hulme, sent a message of his own concerning getting “support” from a number of entities (emphasis added):

Mike Hulme to Simon Shackley

    Simon,

    I have talked with Tim O’Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:

    – Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
    – Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International
    – Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
    – ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me.
    […]
    >SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme
    >sponsors which will help beef things up. (Frans: is the Alsthom
    >contact the same as Nick Jenkin’s below? Also, do you have a BP
    >Amoco
    contact? The name I’ve come up with is Paul Rutter, chief
    >engineer, but he is not a personal contact]
    >
    >We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector.
    >Does anyone know any investment bankers?
    >
    >Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can
    >finalise the list.
    >
    >I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting
    >support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be
    >used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person
    >in brackets).
    >
    >Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
    >Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
    >Jenkins]
    >Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John
    >Shepherd]
    >Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water
    >[Mike Hulme]
    >Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
    >Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon
    >Shackley]
    >Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
    >Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
    >Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]
    >
    >
    >Possibles:
    >Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM [Nick Jenkins]
    >Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation [Nick
    >Jenkins]
    >Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen
    >[Nick Jenkins]
    >Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust [Melvin
    >Cannell]
    >Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]
    >
    >With kind regards
    >
    >Simon Shackley

Now who is the shill for Big Oil again? Next time somebody brings up that ridiculous argument about skeptics, show them this.

Read Full Article Here

Exxon Calls for a Carbon Tax, Again.

Oil Companies Support Global Warming Hoax, Not Skeptics!

Shell calls for derivatives on carbon trading

 



Exxon Calls for a Carbon Tax, Again.

Exxon Calls for a Carbon Tax, Again.

TreeHugger
August 17, 2009

Exxon, the largest oil company in the world has stated that it prefers a carbon tax to a cap and trade system–again–this time, specifically in Australia. This comes on the heels of news last week that Australia’s parliament rejected a cap and trade system for curbing emissions–there won’t be another vote on the bill for at least 3 months (Aussies voted ‘no’ again!). So what’s behind Exxon’s vocal pro-carbon tax stance?

From Bloomberg:

    “A carbon tax is more transparent to consumers, will achieve greater environmental benefits and is more difficult to manipulate than a cap-and-trade program,” John Dashwood, chairman of Exxon’s Australian unit, said in speech notes e- mailed ahead of an address today in Melbourne.

A little puzzling is the fact that Australia’s proposed carbon cap featured relatively low emission reduction targets–as low as 5% reduction from 2000 levels by 2020. Hardly a demanding commitment, at least in the short term (this is why many members of Australia’s own Green party voted against the cap and trade themselves–it wasn’t strict enough).

Nonetheless, some economists, along with experts like James Hansen and Al Gore, prefer the carbon tax option. Throw in Exxon Mobil, and you’ve got yourself an eclectic band of misfits. Economists (and presumably Exxon) argue that the tax is a more efficient and inexpensive way to curb carbon. From Bloomberg:

    Imposing a global carbon tax would ease pressure on the climate more cheaply than emissions trading, according to a study released last week by Danish professor Bjoern Lomborg. A $0.50 tax for each ton of emissions may generate $1.51 in avoided climate damage, compared with costs as high as $68 per ton, resulting in 2 cents of avoided damage, under some emissions-mitigations models, the study said.

Another possible reason for Exxon’s sudden support could be good old fashioned political gamesmanship–the idea of a carbon tax is potentially extremely unpopular (as is anything that includes the word “tax” in its moniker). If the company has reason to believe a carbon tax is very unlikely to actually pass Australian parliament, it can voice support for it and appear environmentally inclined without having to make any actual adjustments. However, Exxon makes for a powerful voice of support, and having the oil giant in favor could draw other businesses’, politicians’, and citizen support for a carbon tax, which could eventually create stricter regulations on the oil giant than a cap would.

Oil Companies Support Global Warming Hoax, Not Skeptics

Shell calls for derivatives on carbon trading