noworldsystem.com


The Scientific Manipulation of Our Reality

The Scientific Manipulation of Our Reality

NoWorldSystem
December 7, 2009


Bertrand Russell

The following quotes are from a book titled The Scientific Outlook by author Bertrand Arthur-William Russell, a renowned British philosopher, a supporter of eugenics and World Government. He’s had a huge influence in the scientific dictatorship that we all live in today. The following quotes will describe how governments use propaganda in public schools, TV and movies to shape public opinions and beliefs to manage large populations for the benefit of the elite.

The Scientific Manipulation of Public Thinking
“Science has given us, in succession, power over inanimate nature, power over plants and animals, and finally power over human beings.” “It is the manipulative type of idealists who will create the scientific society. Of such men, in our own day, Lenin is the archetype.” and Mao Zendong. “All real power will come to be concentrated in the hands of those who understand the art of scientific manipulation.” “Science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated” in other-words the public will not be allowed to know how it’s beliefs and opinions were scientifically manipulated by the government to think a certain way. “Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.”

Shaping the Perfect Slave to be Content With Their Slavery
Children “will spend much time in the open air, and will be given no more book-learning than is absolutely necessary. Upon the temperament so formed, docility will be imposed by the methods of the drill-sergeant, or perhaps by the softer methods employed upon Boy Scouts. All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called “co-operative,” i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them. Their education thought will be in great part manual, and when their school years come to an end they will be taught a trade. In deciding what trade they are to adopt, experts will appraise their aptitudes. Formal lessons, in so far as they exist, will be conducted by means of the cinema or the radio, so that one teacher can give simultaneous lessons in all the classes throughout a whole country. The giving of these lessons will, of course, be recognized as a highly skilled undertaking, reserved for the members of the governing class.”

“It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. But in his day this was an unattainable ideal: what he regarded as the best system in existence produced Karl Marx. In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is dictatorship. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.”

“As for the manual workers, they will be discouraged from serious thought: they will be made as comfortable as possible, and their hours of work will be much shorter than they are at present; they will have no fear of destitution or of misfortune to their children. As soon as working hours are over, amusements will be provided, or a sort calculated to cause wholesome mirth, and to prevent any thoughts of discontent which otherwise might cloud their happiness.”

Propaganda: From the Class Room to Hollywood
“From the technique of advertising it seems to follow that in the great majority of mankind any proposition will win acceptance if it is reiterated in such a way as to remain in the memory. Most of the things that we believe we believe because we have heard them affirmed; we do not remember where or why they were affirmed, and we are therefore unable to be critical even when the affirmation was made by a man whose income would be increased by its acceptance and was not backed by any evidence whatsoever.” (ex: how Al Gore is profiting off the lie that CO2 controls the temperature of the earth.) “Advertisements tend, therefore, as the technique becomes perfected, to be less and less argumentative, and more and more merely striking. So long as an impression is made, the desired result is achieved.”

“This consideration brings us naturally to the subject of education, which is the second great method of public propaganda. Education has two very different purposes; on the one hand it aims at developing the individual and giving him knowledge which will be useful to him; on the other hand it aims at producing citizens who will be convenient for the State or the Church which is educating them. Up to a point these two purposes coincide in practice: it is convenient to the State that citizens should be able to read, and that they should possess some technical skill in virtue of which they are able to do productive work; it is convenient that they should possess sufficient moral character to abstain from unsuccessful crime, and sufficient intelligence to be able to direct their own lives. But when we pass beyond these elementary requirements, the interests of the individual may often conflict with those of the State or the Church. This is especially the case in regard to credulity. To those who control publicity, credulity is an advantage, while to the individual a power of critical judgment is likely to be beneficial; consequently the State does not aim at producing a scientific habit of mind, except in a small minority of experts, who are well paid, and therefore, as a rule, supporters of the status quo. Among those who are not well paid credulity is more advantageous to the State; consequently children in school are taught what they are told and are punished if they express disbelief. In this way a conditioned reflex is established, leading to a belief in anything said authoritatively by elderly persons of importance.” “On the whole, at present in education, the form of loyalty to the State which is most emphasized is hostility to its enemies.” (ex: hating Muslims that supposedly did 9/11.)

Teaching Uniformity Through Hollywood and Television
“Modern inventions and modern technique have had a powerful influence in promoting uniformity of opinion and making men less individual than they used to be. […] But in the modern world there are three great sources of uniformity in addition to education: these are the Press, the cinema, and the radio.” (ex: the media props up the candidates in elections telling us to vote for either candidate McCain or Obama and no one else, voting for anyone else would be a ‘wasted vote’.)

“Perhaps the most important of all the modern agents of propaganda is the cinema. Where the cinema is concerned, the technical reasons for large-scale organizations leading to almost world-wide uniformity are over-whelming. The costs of a good production are colossal, but are no less if it is exhibited seldom than if it is exhibited often and everywhere.” “The great majority of young people in almost all civilized countries derive their ideas of love, of honour, of the way to make money, and of the importance of good clothes, from the evenings spent in seeing what Hollywood thinks good for them. I doubt whether all the schools and churches combined have as much influence as the cinema upon the opinions of the young in regard to such intimate matters as love and marriage and money-making. The producers of Hollywood are the high-priests of a new religion.”

De-population Key to World Government
“There are three ways of securing a society as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a World Government. . .Unless. . . one power or group of powers emerges victorious and proceeds to establish a single government of the world with a monopoly of armed force, it is clear that the level of civilization must continually decline. . .”

In conclusion, one of the greatest examples of the scientific manipulation of our society is the discussion of Global Warming; The elite has flooded their media outlets with propaganda that will make them rich and implant in the human psyche that humans are bad for the environment.

They have propagated the claim that CO2 –the essential element of life– is a toxic gas that should be regulated by a World Government. The global elite have been trying to get everyone to accept the proposition that humans are bad and that all human activity must be regulated for the sake of the planet. This is just one of the many examples of the scientific manipulators shaping the public’s opinions and beliefs. Kids have been hit hard with propaganda not only on TV and movies but in the class rooms, as Bertrand put it the public schools are a laboratory for shaping the perfect slave, they are converting young minds to accept the New World Order religion that is all about the regulation and the destruction of human life on earth.

Doomsday Climate Cultists Attempt to Convert Kids

 



Alex Jones to Eugenicist Diane Francis: KILL YOURSELF

Alex Jones’ Message to Doomsday Cultists and Eugenicists like Diane Francis: KILL YOURSELF

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

 

Diane Francis Spews Her Eugenics One-Child Propaganda on Fox News

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

Furious Reaction To Sick Editorial Calling For Global One Child Dictatorship

Genocidal Climate Change Policy is Killing Third World Nations

 



Ehrlich: Global Dictatorship Needed to Cut Birthrates

Ecoscience Co-Author Paul Ehrlich Maintains Global Population Control Advocacy in Recent Interview

Jurraiaan Maessen
Infowars.com
December 13, 2009

In response to questions raised by University World News, biologist and co-author of Ecoscience, Paul R. Ehrlich is still calling for “interventions to decrease birth rates”.

As current Bing professor of Population Studies and President of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University, Ehrlich is living proof that old habits die hard- and eugenic habits die even harder.

After his famous book The Population Bomb was published in 1968, he has fallen somewhat in credibility for the world kept on turning and mankind is apparently still around, despite of the doom predicted. In 1969 Ehrlich predicted that ““smog disasters” in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles” and “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people”.

Nevertheless, despite Ehrlich’s prediction of the total collapse of human society if the population would continue to rise, after 40 years the man still maintains his point, this time pointing to “climate change” as the consequence of human activity. In the interview of December 13th, Ehrlich states:

“The population explosion will come to an end. The only question is whether it will do so by humanity balancing its interventions to decrease death rates with interventions to decrease birth rates, or whether the death rate will soar.”

Malthus nor Mao Zedong could have said it better themselves. Speaking of China- and specifically, China’s coercive one-child policies- Ehrlich maintains:

“India and China are both vastly overpopulated by the simple standard that they are living on (and exhausting) their natural capital – agricultural soils, ground water, and the biodiversity that runs our life-support systems. Until and unless we can humanely begin to shrink the global population, following the lead of over-consuming and over-populated European nations, the future seems grim.”

“Humanely shrink the global population”, says Ehrlich. He is wise enough to edit the word “humanely” in if he is to avoid the same indignation that befell his friend John Holdren, who co-authored Ecoscience with him in 1977. There is of course no humane way of shrinking the global population. Only a planetary authority, enforcing such a shrinkage, could get the job done. And it is exactly such a planetary regime Mr. Ehrlich called for, together with current chief science advisor to President Obama.

In the following fragment, Paul Ehrlich advocates the creation of a “global system” to create a “behavioral change”. Ehrich: “We don’t have any international effort to say, you know, how are we behaving. We have global problems, why don’t we have a global system to fix it.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulkt4j-qooQ

Under threat of some worldwide virus taking hold to finish off a large part of the world population, Ehrlich advocates global interventions to decrease birthrates. One could argue that Ehrlich advocates only voluntary actions to make sure the birthrates do not increase, were it not that he himself implies such voluntary actions are not sufficient:

“Most unfortunately”, Ehrlich asserts, “over the past few decades the principal population issues considered by activists and foundations have been of reproductive health and rights. Those, of course, are very important but they will be totally moot if overpopulation, helping to drive climate disruption, land-use change, ocean overharvesting, toxification of the entire planet, the increased probability of novel epidemics, and greater threats of resource wars – especially a nuclear one – has not abated.”

Well, it seems Mr. Ehrlich will have his way with humanity if the Copenhagen Treaty will have success. There is your global system, with a globally enforceable mandate- at first to impose carbon taxes upon humanity- later on to do what the eugenicists have always called and planned for: the orderly extermination of at least 80 percent of the global population.

 



World Told to Adopt China’s One Child Policy

World told to adopt China’s one child policy
Francis advocates brutal regime that kidnaps, drugs women, and carries out forced abortions in China

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
December 11, 2009

An article featured in Canada’s Financial Post newspaper calling for China’s draconian one child policy, where woman are kidnapped off the streets, drugged, and forced to undergo compulsory abortions, to be imposed worldwide has been met with widespread hostile reaction, yet such measures are being debated at the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen.

An article featured in Canada’s Financial Post newspaper calling for China’s draconian one child policy, where woman are kidnapped off the streets, drugged, and forced to undergo compulsory abortions, to be imposed worldwide has been met with widespread hostile reaction, yet such measures are being debated at the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen.

In her editorial published on Tuesday, columnist Diane Francis wrote that, “A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate.”

Just days later, the Chinese government delegation at the Copenhagen climate change conference argued that the Communist dictatorship’s one child policy should “serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation.”

As we have exhaustively documented, the overpopulation myth is often cited by control freak phony environmentalists as a justification for the implementation of drastic policies, yet it has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Due to falling fertility rates globally, humans will soon stop replacing themselves and population numbers will naturally fall.

Populations in developed countries are declining, only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth’s population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. “The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050,” states a United Nations report. The UN’s support for depopulation policies is in direct contradiction to their own findings.

Once a country industrializes, there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that global population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.

Since radical environmentalists are pushing to de-industrialize the world in the face of the so called CO2 threat, this will reverse the trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have. If climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation may become a real problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of the earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.

As is the norm with these so-called “liberals” who espouse modern-day eugenics, what they are advocating are the most illiberal, inhumane and barbarous policies imaginable – a Hitlerian final solution in the name of saving Mother Earth.

We need to call out these people for what they are – would-be mass murderers who are advocating arcane and brutal programs of global eugenics that have no place in the 21st century.

Francis’ poorly written diatribe is not only absent of facts, it is shockingly devoid of any notion of compassion or humanity for what a global implementation of China’s one child policy will entail.

China’s one child policy is enforced by way of forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization.

Somewhere in the region of twenty-five million men in China are unable to find brides because so many girls are murdered shortly after birth. The explosion in the illegal sex trade in Asia is also a direct result of the shortage of women.

In many cases, women are literally kidnapped off the street by state goons from the “Birth Control Office,” driven to government hospitals, drugged, and their child is forcibly aborted.

In one case earlier this year, both a young woman and her baby were killed after such an abduction in Liaocheng City.

“According to a Doctor at the hospital where the two died, the young woman was kidnapped by the “Birth Control Office” and taken to the hospital where she was forced to undergo an abortion procedure,” reported the Epoch Times.

“The young woman fought with staff to protect her unborn child however a half a dozen men, pushed her down on a bed and injected her with a drug to induce labor. After the young woman had a still birth, she developed a massive hemorrhage and soon thereafter died.”

This is the kind of tyrannical regime Francis is calling to be introduced worldwide.

Policies introduced in the name of cutting CO2 emissions are already killing millions of people in the third world. 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 as a result of the introduction of biofuels causing mass starvation and death.

If Diane Francis is so keen on getting rid of stupid people that breed too much, then maybe she should step forward as the first candidate. As with all these control freaks, people like Ted Turner who calls for a 95% population reduction yet has five children and is the largest land owner in North America with some 2 million acres, they are utter hypocrites – do as I say not as I do. Francis herself has two children, according to her Wikipedia biography – one more than what she says the rest of the world should be allowed to have by decree of the dictatorial system of government she is proposing.

On the positive side, the reaction to Francis’ editorial has been vehement, furious and hostile to the kind of authoritarian hell she is pushing. Comments in response to her article were almost universally in opposition, as were callers to radio shows that she subsequently appeared on.

A selection of responses to Francis’ disgusting diatribe are reprinted below.

    “Diane Francis was on a talk radio show the same morning this article was published. NOBODY agreed with her. I mean nobody at all. People can see through this Eugenics bullshit. The walls are closing in on the elite scum of the earth.”

    “You make me ashamed of living in Canada. If you’re a first-born, it’s too bad your mother had you and if you’re not, she should have started with you. You are a heartless, dirty woman and shame on you. Ask the Chinese people who fled their country and came to Canada and the U.S. exactly why they’re here. Hang your head in shame.”

    “That this Malthusian junk science is still proposed from time to time speaks of the fact that some in academia just refuse to learn from empirical evidence. And now it’s slipped into journalism. The management of the Financial Post should be quite embarrassed. I’ll just stick to the WSJ and not bother coming back here again. An editorial board that thinks that this is worthy of publication couldn’t possibly know how to edit a newspaper / website.”

    “I am currently reading “War and Genocide” by Bergen and it strikes me that these horrible Nazi ideas keep coming back.With Nazism it was a “scientific” eugenics that led to forced abortions, sterilizations, heavy fines, etc. for some who dared procreate. For Francis, it is a “scientific” environmentalism that will lead to the exact same evils for all (except, of course, herself).”

    “It’s hard to believe that this opinionated rant is called journalism. I saw no evidence of journalistic balance, fairness, and objectivity. She made NO mention of the grave problems caused by the One-Child Policy in China, including: forced sterilizations and abortions, heavy fines, disparate sex ratio, infanticide of females, increase in mental health problems (including Chinese women’s suicide rates)…”

    “This reporter is a complete nut job. I can’t believe anyone in a North American country would actually believe this is a legitimate idea. And by the way, China’s policy has had major consequences. many girl babies were aborted and killed, and due to the scarcity of Chinese women, Chinese men are paying through the nose to obtain brides. Therefore, lives are unfulfilled, and the Chinese population decreases much further than they even desired.”

    “And so one must wonder, what kind of journalism does this article or “column” represent? Which of her children would Diane Francis give up in order to live up to her death rhetoric? One might also ask, what kind of a self-professed do-gooder wants to have power over others in order to “help” them? Who, after all, are these elites who keep telling us that we need to be better controlled, “for our own good, you see”?”

Copenhagen: Global Population Control Program Suggested To Stop Climate Change

 



Clinton Links Over-Population to Global Warming

Clinton Links Over-Population to Global Warming

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
November 8, 2009

During a visit to India in July of this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed not only the administration’s commitment to tackle ‘global climate change’, but also her willingness to link it to overpopulation.

After a roundtable discussion with Indian Minister for Environment Jairam Ramesh, Clinton openly pondered this supposed link:

“One of the participants”, Clinton stated, “pointed out that it’s rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning.”

“That was an incredibly important point”, Clinton added. “And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often unconnected ways.”

These recent comments made by Clinton reflect the mindset of the neo-Malthusian scientists currently occupying key positions in the Obama administration.

It may not come as a complete surprise to those who have studied the matter in some depth. The same Malthusian idea that triggered eugenics in the past now inspires the current environmentalist movement pushing global carbon taxes and other supranational measures, supposedly to ‘curb our carbon footprint’.

A couple of months before Clinton’s statements, LifeNews.Com reported on the comments by Clinton advisor Nina Fedoroff, who stated before BBC One Planet:

“We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people. There are probably already too many people on the planet.”

What we are witnessing here is the true mindset and ambition of the globalists and their cronies, namely to reduce the world’s population, the sooner the better. As the elite often admit, the current fixation on CO2 is just a pretext in order to get the job done.

 

Population Control: The Eugenics Connection

Old Thinker News
June 24, 2008

Has eugenics faded away with time, or has the pseudo science morphed and cloaked itself under new auspices? Were some of the original founders of population control efforts themselves eugenicists? How and when did eugenicists shift from Galton era ideals to Malthusian population control?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVhE3Muh3co

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feJza0S7AeA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1p-Xxcwx0U

Ted Turner: World Needs a ’Voluntary’ One-Child Policy for the Next Hundred Years

Kissinger’s Plan For Food Control Genocide

ENDGAME – Blueprint for Global Enslavement

Science Chief: Cut Birthrate To Stop Global Warming

BABY TAXES Needed to Save Planet

China Says One-Child Policy Helps Protect Climate

 



Obama Science Advisor Advocates Forced Abortions

Obama Science Advisor Advocates Forced Abortions
In 1977 book, John Holdren advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent pregnancies

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
July 11, 2009

President Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.

The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it could be true.

It was only when another Internet blog obtained the book and posted screenshots that the awful truth about what Holdren had actually committed to paper actually began to sink in.

This issue is more prescient than ever because Holdren and his colleagues are now at the forefront of efforts to combat “climate change” through similarly insane programs focused around geoengineering the planet. As we reported in April, Holdren recently advocated “Large-scale geoengineering projects designed to cool the Earth,” such as “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays,” which many have pointed out is already occurring via chemtrails.

Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind’s greatest threat – overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the horrifying foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear. These proposals include;

– Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.

– Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby.

– Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.

– Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.

– Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”.

– Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.

– This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized “planetary regime” that would utilize a “global police force” to enforce the measures outlined above. The “planetary regime” would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world.

The quotes from the book are included below. We also include comments by the author of the blog who provided the screenshots of the relevant passages. Screenshots of the relevant pages and the quotes in their full context are provided at the end of the excerpts. The quotes from the book appear as text indents and in bold. The quotes from the author of the blog are italicized.

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control

Involuntary fertility control

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children

“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.“

Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born

Toward a Planetary Regime

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism

“Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.”

Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000

“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”

Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000

“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”

See Screenshots of the Actual Pages in Holdren’s Book “Ecoscience”.



“Mr. Gore We Know About Your New World Order”

“Mr. Gore We Know About Your New World Order Eugenics Program”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8j93wtZEW0

 

Activist Arrested During Al Gore Confrontation

 



Ted Turner Wants You Dead To Solve Global Warming

Ted Turner Wants You Dead To Solve Global Warming

Rogue Government
April 5, 2009


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEfPEtCAcp4

Ted Turner the largest U.S. land owner and wealthy media mogul has stated yet again during a PBS interview with Charlie Rose that the world’s population needs to be reduced. Turner also used the interview as an opportunity to continue the non stop irrational fear mongering of global warming. He stated that if something isn’t done about global warming that people would soon be forced to resort to cannibalism. Turner also stated that he believes that global warming is directly related to the fact that there are too many people on the planet using too much stuff. Therefore, to fight global warming you’d need to have a dramatic reduction in population. As ridiculous as his comments are, this is nothing new from Turner. Turner has promoted eugenics driven policies like one and two-child policies for many years and has consistently touted the virtues of global government through the United Nations (UN). For Turner, it doesn’t matter that the UN has consistently made problems it supposedly attempts to resolve, worse. This is because for Turner and the global elite it is about control. What better way for the rulers of the planet like Turner to gain more control by reducing the world’s population through eugenics and implementing a global carbon tax that will further their aims for a one world government. The proposed solution to solve the phony problem of global warming by the elites has always been the implementation of a global carbon tax. The carbon tax will simply serve as a way to extract wealth from the poor and middle class of the world and into the hands of the elite. These are the true aims of Turner and the individuals who seek to build this New World Order enslavement system through the promotion of the global warming scam. Simply put, Turner and the elites want you dead and they want to implement their population reduction plans under the guise of saving the planet.

Below is taken from the Atlanta Journal Constitution’s report on Turner’s recent comments.

If steps aren’t taken to stem global warming, “We’ll be eight degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow,” Turner said during a wide-ranging, hour-long interview with PBS’s Charlie Rose that aired Tuesday.

“Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals,” said Turner, 69. “Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable.”

One way to combat global warming, Turner said, is to stabilize the population.

“We’re too many people; that’s why we have global warming,” he said. “Too many people are using too much stuff.”

Turner suggested that “on a voluntary basis, everybody in the world’s got to pledge to themselves that one or two children is it.”

First off, there is no hard scientific evidence indicating that global warming is being caused by man’s activities on this planet. In fact, global warming might not even be occurring at all. Many scientists dispute the claims of Al Gore and other people that have been promoting this theory of global warming and that man is causing it through their activities. There have also been reports of planets in the solar system warming in conjunction with the Earth getting warmer indicating that this is the result of solar activity. In the 1970s, the hysteria of global cooling and the coming ice age was heavily reported on and now only 30 years later, we see the hysteria of global warming. There’s absolutely no way that the threat of global warming can be taken seriously considering this information but that doesn’t stop Turner from promoting the global warming fraud. It is simply an excuse to implement their mass eugenics based extermination programs.

Turner has been at the forefront of promoting eugenics and the threat of phony environmental problems for quite sometime. Back in the 1990s, Turner who was unsatisfied with the original Ten Commandments released his own Ten Voluntary Initiatives as a replacement. Although some of his initiatives sound reasonable, it is clear that Turner’s intention with these initiatives is to promote the virtues of population reduction, governance by the United Nations to solve all of our problems and the new age religion of earth worship that is being promoted heavily by the elites. Turner’s Ten Voluntary Initiatives are listed below.

1. I promise to have love and respect for the planet earth and living things thereon, especially my fellow species–humankind.

2. I promise to treat all persons everywhere with dignity, respect, and friendliness.

3. I promise to have no more than two children, or no more than my nation suggests.

4. I promise to use my best efforts to save what is left of our natural world in its untouched state and to restore damaged or destroyed areas where practical.

5. I pledge to use as little nonrenewable resources as possible.

6. I pledge to use as little toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other poisons as possible and to work for their reduction by others.

7. I promise to contribute to those less fortunate than myself, to help them become self-sufficient and enjoy the benefits of a decent life, including clean air and water, adequate food and health care, housing, education, and individual rights.

8. I reject the use of force, in particular military force, and back United Nations arbitration of international disputes.

9. I support the total elimination of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction.

10. I support the United Nations and its efforts to collectively improve the conditions of the planet.

Also during the 1990s, Turner was responsible for the launch of the propaganda laced cartoon series Captain Planet. Turner claimed that he launched the cartoon as a way to make children aware of the environmental problems that the planet is facing. In reality, Captain Planet was a way to indoctrinate the youth of the world into the pagan concepts of earth worship as well as the New World Order. In the cartoon series, Gaia the spirit of earth can no longer stand the destruction of the planet and gives five special rings to young people around the world. The five young people represented the elemental powers of fire, wind, water, earth and heart each of which came from a different region of the world. Together, the powers allowed them to summon Captain Planet to battle the evil polluters of the world. There is no doubt that Turner sought to use this cartoon in order to indoctrinate young people into the environmental agenda that the global elite would be pushing much more aggressively later.

Back in 1996, Turner stated in an interview with Audubon Magazine that a 95% population reduction would be ideal. Below is his quote.

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Turner has also donated $1 billion to an organization known as the United Nations Foundation. The organization created by Turner is dedicated to the goals of population control, condom distribution, promotion of abortion and other methods to promote the stealth eugenics agenda. Turner and others like Bill and Melinda Gates have donated large amounts of money to so called charitable organizations which really serve to promote the eugenics movement. The public thinks they are doing a good thing with their money, when in fact they are contributing their wealth behind a much more evil and sinister agenda.

Amazingly, Turner was also given an award from the UN for his work in sustainable development which is really nothing more than code for population reduction.

Turner is suffering from the same disease that elites throughout history have had. Once these people have all the money that they could ever want, they seek power and they seek to do evil things with that power. By advocating population reduction and claiming that global warming is directly tied to the belief that there are too many people on the planet, Turner is simply promoting a softer variation of the eugenics programs that Hitler and his Third Reich implemented during World War II. No government or group of people should have the power to enforce population reduction. By giving governments and assorted institutions this power, this gives the people who have control over these organizations god like power. Of course, people like Turner and other elites seek to be living gods on this planet and want to ensure that their power is not challenged. Turner is simply out of his mind, and if he really believed in population reduction, it is hypocritical that he has decided not to kill himself in order to begin the process.

 



Eco-Nazis Call For Limiting Amount Of Children

Eco-Nazis Call For Limiting Amount Of Children

Daily Mail
July 25, 2008

British couples should have no more than two children to save the world from global warming, according to a green think tank.

Campaigners from the Optimum Population Trust said limiting family size was the ‘simplest and biggest’ contribution people could make to saving the planet.

While Britain need not follow the example of China and ban large families, having more than two children should be frowned upon in the same way as using a patio heater or driving a gas guzzling car.

But critics said doctors and governments had no right to tell parents how many children to have – and that population control could lead to more problems than it solved.

The controversial call comes from Prof John Guilleband, emeritus professor of family planning at Imperial College London, and GP Dr Pippa Hayes.

The Optimum Population Trust was at the centre of a row in 2003 after suggesting the ideal population for the UK was 30 million – around half its current level.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, they called on family doctors to ‘break their silence’ on the links between large families and climate change.

‘Unplanned pregnancy, especially in teenagers, is a problem for the planet, as well as the individual concerned. But what about planned pregnancies?” they said.

‘Should we now explain to UK couples who plan a family that stopping at two children, or at least having one less child than first intended, is the simplest and biggest contribution anyone can make to leaving a habitable planet for our grandchildren?’

A child born in the UK will be responsible for 160 times more greenhouse emissions than a child born in Ethiopia, they said.

‘We must not put pressure on people, but by providing information on the population and the environment, and appropriate contraception for everyone, and by their own example, doctors should help to bring family size into the arena of environmental ethics, analogous to avoiding patio heaters and high carbon cars,” they added.

In the UK which has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in western Europe, population is officially projected to rise from 60.6 million to 77 million in 2050 – more than another two Londons. A ‘two child’ policy would reduce the figure to 55 million, they said.

The researchers warn with world population exceeding 6.7 billion, humans consumption of fossil fuels, fresh water, crops fish and forests is outstripping the planet’s biological capacity.

Countries such as Costa Rica, Sri Lanka and Thailand, have reduced their fertility rates by improving access to contraception and through education, they said.

Critics of population control say it fails to tackle the real threats to the environment. And reducing Britain’s population could lead to huge social problems if there were not enough young people to pay for the care of the elderly.

Robert Whelan, of the Civitas think tank, said the way to tackle environmental problems was through eradicating poverty – not limiting population.

‘These people think that they know how many children people should have. But the only people who should make that decision are parents themselves,” he said.

‘We have to treat with great suspicion any attempt to interfere with the choices of parents either in the third world or in the first world.’ Most mainstream green groups shy away from discussing overpopulation, believing the subject is too controversial.

The Optimum Population Trust’s supporters include actress Susan Hampshire and environmentalist Jonathan Porritt.

Its views echo those of Malthus – the 18th century economist who claimed population would rise more quickly than food production triggering mass starvations.

Until it was discredited by Nazism, population control in the first half of the 20th century was most closely associated with eugenics – the belief that ‘undesirable’ qualities should removed from populations to improve future generations.

The rise of the green movement in the 1970s and 1980s led to a revival in calls for population control.

Population Control: The Eugenics Connection
http://noworldsystem.com/2008/06/25/population-control-the-eugenics-connection/

Ted Turner: World Needs a ’Voluntary’ One-Child Policy for the Next Hundred Years
http://noworldsystem.com/2008/05/13/ted-turner-confronted-on-population-control/

Science Chief: Cut Birthrate To Save Earth
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jul/22/climatechange.climatechange

BABY TAXES Needed to Save Planet
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html

China Says One-Child Policy Helps Protect Climate
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL..hs_response&sp=true

 



Ted Turner Confronted on Population Control


Ted Turner: World Needs a ’Voluntary’ One-Child Policy for the Next Hundred Years
Philly 9/11 Truth Confronts Eugenicist on Calls for 95% Population Reduction

Aaron Dykes
Jones Report
April 29, 2008

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1G72Sd6AqjE

Okay, so Ted Turner’s not a people person. But, he has a plan to bring the world’s population down to 2 billion– a figure substantially less than current numbers– that he says would allow for a better standard of living… for everyone.

Though it might be trying for the world to adopt the brutal one-child policy of China, it would, ideally, help humanity to avoid the nightmare cannibalism scenario Turner claims we otherwise face in the wake of global warming.

Ted Turner used his Southern charm to calm worries that he longed for 95% decline from current population levels during a question and answer session– as the billionaire eugenicist was quoted in Audubon magazine more than a decade ago.

“That’s not really true,” Turner told members of Philly 9/11 Truth. He instead cited 2 billion as the target– a mere 2/3 reduction of the human population — which he claims would allow ’everyone’ to have a decent standard of living, including a “refrigerator and air conditioner.”

The 9/11 Truth activists probed the billionaire on how he would achieve these population goals– citing policymakers like Henry Kissinger who advocate using ’food as weapon.’

Turner commented, “The way I think we should get there is have a voluntary one child per family for the next hundred years… like they do in China now.”

Despite the fact that Turner himself has 5 children, he has put forward this view a number of times before. “We’re too many people; that’s why we have global warming,” he told PBS’s Charlie Rose in April. “Too many people are using too much stuff.”

“On a voluntary basis, everybody in the world’s got to pledge to themselves that one or two children is it,” Turner added during the April 2008 interview.

China’s policies have been heavily criticized not only for the gross human rights violations against its dehumanized population, but also for its peer-pressure affect on the rest of the world to adopt similar polices. China, too, started with a so-called ’voluntary’ policy which then led to fines and only later to more extreme punishments for having more than one child.

In the name of global warming and environmentalism, children have now been blamed as ’part of the problem’ and calls to limit children have now saturated the Western World.

In the third world, Turner has contributed literally billions to population reduction, namely through United Nations programs , leading the way for the likes of Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett (Gates father, for one, has long been a leading board member of Planned Parenthood and a top eugenicist).

These same figures have also donated vast sums of money for vaccination programs that many have identified as part of the problem.

Members of Philly 9/11 Truth also asked Turner about being the largest land owner in North America. Turner suggested that his vast acreage– estimated at more than 2 million acres— was being put to good use, deflecting claims of hypocrisy.

Turner has also been criticized recently for advocating the production of corn-based ethanol, which has now been blamed by the U.N. and others for causing food shortages and increased poverty, particularly in the 3rd World.

Philly 9/11 Truth also confronted the unrepentant Turner after the event to further criticize his involvement with globalist agendas that continue to pursue drastic population reduction at the cost of dignity and respect for the masses of humanity.

In 1996, Turner stated in an interview with Audubon Magazine that a 95% population reduction would be ideal. Below is his quote.

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”


Ted Turner Repeats Call For Population Curb

Says diminishing farmland will lead to food riots, despite being behind corn-based ethanol push

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
April 28, 2008

Billionaire Globalist Ted Turner, who earlier this month predicted that global warming would eventually lead to cannibalism, has repeated his call to curb population growth, claiming that disappearing farmland will cause food riots, despite the fact that Turner himself is behind the push to grow corn-based ethanol, an industry the UN has blamed for food shortages and increased poverty.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3jgKodUUeTU

“There are a lot of different problems being caused by an ever-increasing number of people in a finite-sized world,” Turner told CNBC’s Bob Pisani. “The resources of the planet just can’t keep up with the demand and I’m afraid this going to be more commonplace. I’m afraid we’re just seeing the tip of the iceberg. It’s very complicated I do want to say.”

“We’ve had warnings for a number of years,” Turner said. “Grain stocks have been dropping every year for the last 10 years or pretty close to that – the reserves. And, the environment in so many different areas is being – the pressure being put on it by the ever-increasing number of people and the number of people using more stuff and more energy – that’s what ‘s leading to global climate change and the over-fishing of the oceans,” he added.

Turner cited increased vehicle usage as a reason for disappearing farmland.

“Agriculture is complicated anyway. For instance – China adds more cars, they need more roads and the only place to put more roads in China is over farmland. So you lose farmland as you increase development. We’re doing it even here in the United States.”

However, Turner failed to acknowledge the fact that one of the main reasons behind food shortages is global demand for biofuels, an industry that Turner has vigorously promoted and publicly supported in a 2006 WTO speech.

As the UN warned last year, “The global rush to switch from oil to energy derived from plants will drive deforestation, push small farmers off the land and lead to serious food shortages and increased poverty unless carefully managed”.

Earlier this month, Turner caused shockwaves when he stated that inaction on global warming “will be catastrophic” and those who don’t die “will be cannibals.”

“We’re too many people; that’s why we have global warming,” he said. “Too many people are using too much stuff,” adding that “on a voluntary basis, everybody in the world’s got to pledge to themselves that one or two children is it.”

Turner himself failed to live up to such a pledge, having fathered five children, but continues to lecture the rest of us on how we should limit our procreation.

Some would find Turner’s zeal to “thin” the human population hard to reconcile with his leadership of a UN initiative to combat malaria.

When one considers Turner’s past comments about the supposed need to drastically cut world population levels by up to 95%, his involvement in any kind of program run under the guise of “improving health” in third world countries should be examined with severe caution.

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal,” Turner stated in 1996.

As the Baltimore Sun reported, “Most of [Ted Turner’s first donation to the United Nations Foundation of] $22 million went to programs that seek to stall population growth.”

Recent News:

Pelosi & Gingrich Want Carbon Tax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

US air force calls for mission to combat climate change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environm..change?gusrc=rss&feed=science

Global Warming – Left’s latest excuse for war on the family
http://grasstopsusa.com/df042808.html

Rockefeller’s Urge Action On Climate Change
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/.._resources/article3835693.ece

Veteran Professor Targeted For Global Warming Skepticism
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5736103.html

Record complaints over ’greenwashing’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/m..008/04/25/eagreen125.xml

Gore Investment Body Closes $683M Fund
Carbon emissions may be immaterial to global warming in future
The link between solar cycle length and decadal global temperature

Radiohead Limits Travel To Fight Climate Change

Global Warming Hoax News Archive

 



Sterilize Parents For Having Too Many Children

Sterilize Parents For Having Too Many Children

London Telegraph
March 25, 2008

A councillor is facing calls to resign after he said parents on benefits should be sterilised to stop them having more than one child.

John Ward, a Conservative member of Medway Council in Kent, made the comments during a discussion about the hunt for the schoolgirl Shannon Matthews.

He said her family was an example of social decline in Britain. He outlined his proposals to cut spending on social security payments.

Writing on his personal website, the councillor said: “There is an increasingly strong case for compulsory sterilisation of all those who have had a second child – or third, or whatever – while living off state benefits.

“It would clearly take a lot of social pressures off all concerned, thus protecting the youngsters themselves to some degree, and remove the incentive to breed for greed, ie for more public subsidy.”

Mr Ward, who has been on the council for eight years, said yesterday he was sorry if his comments “caused any problems”.

But he has already been widely condemned.

The local Labour deputy leader, Glyn Griffiths, said: “If the Conservatives care about their image they should expel Mr Ward.”

Fellow Labour councillor, Bill Esterson, said: “It’s the sort of thing Nazis did.”

Tory councillor who suggested parents on benefits should be sterilised is forced to quit
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pa..article_id=545128&in_page_id=1770

BABY TAXES Needed to Save Planet
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html

 



United Nations Model for the New World Order is China

United Nations Model for the New World Order is China

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

ENDGAME: Blueprint for Global Enslavement
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d…53600562261&hl=en

 



Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural


Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural

Attempts to reduce CO2 emissions “pointless” as sun is cited as climate change culprit

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
December 11, 2007

The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.

The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.

Authored by Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia), the study appears in this month’s International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society.

“The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming,” said lead author David H. Douglass.

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate. Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless – but very costly.”

The findings of the report help to explain why we are witnessing climate change in almost every corner of our solar system, from Mars to Pluto, to Jupiter and to the moons of Neptune – and clearly identify the sun as the main culprit and not CO2 emissions – which are being used as a pretext for control freaks to completely dominate every aspect of our lives.

Man-made global warming advocates have often made their case by claiming that the scientific consensus is fully behind CO2 emissions as the main driver of climate change, when in fact the UN’s own IPCC report was disputed by the very scientists that the UN claimed were behind it.

In reality, a significant number of prominent experts dispute the global warming mantra, but many have been intimidated into silence and had their careers threatened simply for stating an opposing view.

HAT TIP: Canadian Free Press

 

Climate change hits Mars

The Sunday Times
April 29, 2007

Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.

In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature.

Fenton’s team unearthed heat maps of the Martian surface from Nasa’s Viking mission in the 1970s and compared them with maps gathered more than two decades later by Mars Global Surveyor. They found there had been widespread changes, with some areas becoming darker.

When a surface darkens it absorbs more heat, eventually radiating that heat back to warm the thin Martian atmosphere: lighter surfaces have the opposite effect. The temperature differences between the two are thought to be stirring up more winds, and dust, creating a cycle that is warming the planet.

BABY TAXES Needed to Save Planet
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html

Gore warns against ‘mutually assured destruction,’ compares global warming to nuclear war
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Gore…ize_ceremony_1210.html

Earth has had several cooling-warming periods
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/12/10/opinion/letters/129071.txt

New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

Elite Depopulation Agenda Gains Ground
http://infowars.net/articles/december2007/101207Depopulation.htm

Global Warming Hoax News Archive

 



De-Facto One Child Policy Urged in Australia

De-Facto One Child Policy Urged in Australia

AAP
December 10, 2007


COUPLES who have more than two children should be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring’s carbon dioxide emissions, a medical expert says.

The report in an Australian medical journal called for parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800.

And couples who were sterilised would be eligible for carbon credits under the controversial proposal.

Perth specialist Professor Barry Walters was heavily critical of the $4000 baby bonus, saying that paying new parents extra for every baby fuelled more children, more emissions and “greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour”.

Instead, it should be replaced with a “baby levy” in the form of a carbon tax in line with the “polluter pays” principle, he wrote in the latest Medical Journal of Australia.

“Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being,” said Prof Walters, an obstetrician at King Edward Memorial Hospital.

Sustainable Population Australia suggested a maximum of two, he said.

By the same reasoning, contraceptives like diaphragms and condoms, as well as sterilisation procedures, should attract carbon credits, the specialist said.

Read Full Article Here

Global Warming Hoax News Archive

 



Vote Coming On Carbon Credit Enslavement Bill

Vote Coming On Carbon Credit Enslavement Bill

Baltimore Sun
December 4, 2007

A U.S. Senate committee is scheduled for an historic vote on a global warming bill this week, perhaps as early as Wednesday. Environmental groups are planning a flurry of press conferences tomorrow (12/4/2007) to try to influence the vote.

Meanwhile, in Maryland, Gov. Martin O’Malley’s advisory Commission on Climate Change is scheduled to meet tomorrow to discuss possible steps to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emmissions. The 22-member goup, headed by state Environmental Secretary Shari T. Wilson, is looking to recommend that the state adopt laws to cut greenhouse gases by 25 percent by 2020, and then move aggressively to slash the pollutants by 90 percent by 2050, according to a draft report. To achieve these goals, the state should tighten its energy efficiency standards, strengthen building codes, require more clean energy generation, among other steps.

“As a coastal state with extensive low-lying land on the Eastern Shore and around the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland is exceeded only by Louisiana, Florida and Delaware in the percentage of its land vulnerable to accelerated sea level rise,” the draft report warns.

On the Federal level, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday is expected to debate amendments to a bill proposed by Sens. Lieberman of Connecticut and Warner of Virginia that would create a “cap and trade” system designed to cut total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. These systems require industries to pay fees when they emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouses gases above a set limit, with the money going to reward cleaner businesses.

Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland is a co-sponsor of the bill. A group of Maryland environmental groups recently wrote a letter to Cardin (see below) urging him to strengthen the bill. They praise the proposal as a good first step, but they want to end the bill’s free giveaway of pollution credits to power companies and amend the legislation to create a more aggressive target of an 80 percent cut by 2050.

“This is the first time ever a Senate commitee is voting on a global warming bill, and that’s historic,” said Brad Heavner, director of Environment Maryland. “There is some reasonable expectation that this will get to the floor, but the big question is will it get stronger or weaker?….We think it needs to be stronger.”

As this blog reported last month, Europe tried a pollution credit trading system to curb carbon dioxide emissions after it passed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, and power companies worked the system to make billions in profits. Electricity customers paid higher bills, thinking they were contributing to a cooler planet. But their money just went into the pockets of the electric companies, which didn’t end up actually cutting down on their carbon dioxide emissions.

On the other side of the political spectrum from these environmental groups, most Republicans on the committee are unlikely to vote in favor of the bill’s current requirements, according to the online journal Grist.

“Right now, there’s little reason to expect that any Republican on the committee other than John Warner (R-Va.) himself will vote for it. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) spoke critically of it at the first subcommittee hearing last week, and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) took to the podium of the National Press Club two days later to pillory the bill.

Voinovich said: ‘I have significant reservations about the bill. I have recently heard the concerns of a variety of constituents, including both industry and labor representatives, who are especially concerned that the bill presents an overly aggressive first phase of emissions reductions that will hit well before we can reasonably expect commercially available technologies to deal with the problem.’

Without the support of more Republicans, it’s unclear if the measure will make it out of the full Senate — not to mention survive a veto by President Bush, if he chose to use that power.

Meanwhile, the nonprofit Pew Center on Global Climate Change is releasing a report tomorrow on the impact of global warming on the Chesapeake Bay. Environment Maryland tomorrow morning is releasing a report on changes in local rainfall expected because of climate change.

Related News:

S 2191: The Carbon Credit Enslavement System
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=5188

John Stossel Exposes Global Warming on 20/20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FI0U5JOtoo

Fall in weather deaths dents climate hysteria warnings
http://www.sott.net/articles/s…nts-climate-hysteria-warnings

Blast from the past? Coldest winter in 15 years, Environment Canada says
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/30/winter-forecast.html

Global Warming Hoax News Archive

 



China Says One-Child Policy Helps Protect Climate
September 1, 2007, 10:38 am
Filed under: China, Eugenics, Global Warming, John Edwards, one child policy, Population Control, UN

China Says One-Child Policy Helps Protect Climate

Alister Doyle
Reuters
August 30, 2007

VIENNA (Reuters) – China says its one-child policy has helped the fight against global warming by avoiding 300 million births, the equivalent of the population of the United States.

But delegates at U.N. climate change talks in Vienna said on Thursday birth control is unlikely to find favor as a major policy theme, partly because of opposition by the Catholic Church and some developing nations trying to increase their population.

Some scientists say that birth control measures far less draconian than China’s are wrongly overlooked in the fight against climate change, when the world population is projected to soar to about 9 billion by 2050 from 6.6 billion now.

“Population is clearly an important factor,” said Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, at U.N. talks trying to plan a new deal to combat climate change after 2012.

China, which rejects criticism that it is doing too little to confront climate change, says that its population is now 1.3 billion against 1.6 billion if it had not imposed tough birth control measures in the late 1970s.

The number of births avoided equals the entire population of the United States. Beijing says that fewer people means less demand for energy and lower emissions of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels.

“This is only an illustration of the actions we have taken,” said Su Wei, a senior Foreign Ministry official heading China’s delegation to the 158-nation talks from Aug 27-31.

He told Reuters that Beijing was not arguing that its policy was a model for others to follow in a global drive to avert ever more chaotic weather patterns, droughts, floods, erosion and rising ocean levels.

But avoiding 300 million births “means we averted 1.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2005” based on average world per capital emissions of 4.2 tonnes, he said.

GERMANY

A country emitting 1.3 billion tonnes a year would rank just ahead of Germany on a global list of emitters behind only the United States, China, Russia, India and Japan.

Beijing introduced its one-child policy in the late 1970s. The rules vary across the country but usually limit families to one or, at most two, children.

“Population has not been taken seriously enough in the climate debate,” said Chris Rapley, incoming head of the Science Museum in London.

He favors a greater drive for education about family planning to avoid unwanted births and slow population growth.

But tougher birth control runs into opposition from the Roman Catholic Church, and from some developing nations which favor rising birth rates and have per capita emissions a fraction of those in rich nations.

Harlan Watson, the chief U.S. negotiator, said that high immigration to the United States makes it harder to slow its rising emissions.

“It’s simple arithmetic,” he said. “If you look at mid-century, Europe will be at 1990 levels of population while ours will be nearing 60 percent above 1990 levels. So population does matter,” he said.

Related News:

Priests To Take Confessions of Eco-Sinners
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2349163.ece

Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm

Edwards: Americans Should Give Up SUVs
http://www.wlos.com/template/inews_wir….c-www.wlos.com.shtml

UN: Mankind To Blame For Warming
http://www.reuters.com/article/envir….s&rpc=22&sp=true

Colbert Report on the Northwest Passage
http://daybringersblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/global-warming.html

Science Chief: Cut Birthrate To Save Earth
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2132089,00.html

Al Gore Serves Endangered Fish at Daughter’s Party
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/page….n_page_id=1811

Exclusive: Another “Global Warming” Claim “Debunked”!
The truth is, we can’t ignore the sun
9/11 Truth Banner Seen Worldwide on Live Earth
Families Should Have No More Than Two Children – Thinktank
Global Warming Advocate Claims Jupiter & Saturn Are Closer To The Sun Than Earth
Only Two Children Per Family To Fight Warming
“Stranded Polar Bears” Global Warming Hoax Exposed
9/11 Truth Invades Live Earth
How Polluting is ‘Live Earth’?
Is It Really Wrong To Have More Than Two Children?
Expert Questions Gore On Global Warming
Plastic bottles do not cause global warming
BBC Receive 150 Complaints Over Use of Foul Language During Live Earth
Europe May Ban Sports Cars To Fight Warming
The Live Earth Global Warming Fraud
Guyana Criticizes Carbon Credit Scheme
Low Temps Blamed For Small Crowd At Live Earth
Counting on Failure, Energy Chairman Floats Carbon Tax
Live Earth Branded A Foul-Mouthed Flop
Low temp blamed for small crowd at global warming fest
Al Gore slams global warming doubters at Live Earth
Climate change concert star Madonna accused of hypocrisy
One Child Policy: Children “Bad for the Planet”
Enviro-Crime Snoops Paid £30,000 Just to Check Your Rubbish
Green future demands a radical shift in lifestyles for British
Huge Price Tag on Carbon Emissions for Canadians
Big show, big impact? Live Earth hopes so
Live Earth Seeks Carbon Emissions Cut of 90 Percent by 2050
Live Earth Celebrities’ Carbon Footprint Huge
Quebec to Bring in Canada’s First Carbon Tax
Mike Gravel Wants a Carbon Tax
Taxing Us for Breathing

The Great Global Warming Swindle
IN-DEPTH GLOBAL WARMING ANALYSIS PAGE