The UN’s IPCC Climate Fraud

“As the world battles historic droughts, landscape-altering wildfires and deadly floods, a landmark report from global scientists says the window is rapidly closing to cut our reliance on fossil fuels and avoid catastrophic changes that would transform life as we know it….

“Only by making deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, while also removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, can we halt the precipitous trend.” — “Earth is warming faster than previously thought, scientists say, and the window is closing to avoid catastrophic outcomes,” (8-9-21)

“The UN Secretary-General António Guterres said the Working Group’s report was nothing less than ‘a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk. Global heating is affecting every region on Earth, with many of the changes becoming irreversible.’” —  “Secretary-General’s statement on the IPCC Working Group 1 Report on the Physical Science Basis of the Sixth Assessment,”, August 9, 2021

Note:  Guterres is a member of the Portuguese Socialist Party and former president of  the Socialist International.

“We can’t solve the climate crisis without getting out of our cars and onto buses and trains.” — Opinion, (updated August 10, 2021).

It’s About Power
Seven years after its last report, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a new report in early August.  As usual, it was alarmist and postured as reflecting scientific consensus.  Naturally, the Establishment media quickly echoed the alarm.

However, the UN’s game plan is clear, once one understands the forces that created and control the UN and also control the environmental revolutionary movement.   The objective of those forces is to control us by creating pretexts for unaccountable government power, and those forces use revolutionaries to create pressure from below to justify their power grabs.

The UN’s game plan is not new.  It was clearly revealed at the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.  After attending the event and witnessing the political realities,  Dr. Dixy Lee Ray wrote an authoritative expose, Environmental Overkill — Whatever Happened to Common Sense?  Dr. Ray was the former governor of the state of Washington and chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.

On page 10, Dr. Ray summarized:  “The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED [UN Conference on Environment and Development — the Earth Summit], is to bring about a change in the present system of nations. The future is to be world government, with central planning by the UN. Fear of environmental crises, whether real or not, is expected to lead to compliance.”

Revolutionaries need crises to propel those power grabs.  The climate change crisis hype serves the same purpose as the government’s use of a COVID pandemic — to expand the power of government.   The climate change “crisis,” in particular, is designed to limit our access to energy by forcing reliance on expensive and inadequate alternative energy sources, leading to government managed rationing.

Cloaked as “Science”
To support its wild claims, the IPCC makes use of computer climate models, which are designed to be alarmist.  The IPCC’s climate models are notoriously deficient in predicting reality.

Anticipating the Report’s release, Science Magazine (July 30, 2021) questioned the IPCC projections — see “U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming.”

To achieve credibility for its forecast, the UN touts the fact that representatives of 195 member countries have signed off on the report.  But this just shows the IPCC’s desperation, since the unanimous consensus of corrupted member governments does not reflect either overwhelming scientific agreement or truth.

Indeed, many competent, uncorrupted scientists dispute the thesis that manmade CO2 is responsible for global warming. One such is Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, now retired.  In June of last year, he wrote:

Climate science didn’t used to be alarmist prior to the late 1980s.  That changed during the years 1988-1994, when climate research centered on CO2 and global warming received a 15-fold increase in funding in the US alone. Suddenly there was a great financial incentive to propel alarming global warming scenarios.1  (See also his comments in our 2018 post “UN Climate-Change Hysteria.”)

Another noteworthy dissenter was the late great Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson.  Dyson performed pioneering work in areas such as quantum field theory and astrophysics.   In 2018, Dyson argued: “If they did not scare the public they wouldn’t get support from the government.” 2

In response to the widespread hype that the science was settled, and efforts to demonize dissenters, the Global Warming Petition Project was created in 1998 (following the Kyoto treaty).   The Project shows that many scientists rejected the UN enforced orthodoxy.  The petition states in part:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The petition was introduced with a letter form Physicist Frederick Seitz, former President of the U.S. Academy of Sciences.  In response, the petition was signed by over 30,000 Americans with university degrees in science including 9,000 with PhDs. Just one of many notable signers:  the late Dr. Edward Teller, known colloquially as “the father of the hydrogen bomb.”

Of course, if the media mentions such dissent at all, it demonizes the dissent out of hand.

The climate change scare serves several totalitarian objectives.  The scarcity and rationing objective was cited above.  But another one that has emerged is the result of the government’s highly successful regimentation of society using the COVID scare.  Climate activists are jealous of that success.  For example, former Secretary of State John Kerry suggested:  “You could just as easily replace the words climate change with COVID-19; it is truly the tale of two pandemics deferred, denied, and distorted, one with catastrophic consequences, the other with even greater risk if we don’t reverse course.” 3 Kerry is now the 1st United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate in the Biden administration.

Please share this post with the people you know who will likely be interested.


  1. Richard S. Lindzen, “An Oversimplified Picture of Climate Behavior Based on a Single Process Can Lead to Distorted Conclusions,” European Physical Journal Plus 135, no. 6 (June 2020): 462,]
  2. Freeman Dyson in “The Uncertainty Has Settled (Full film),” Marijn Poels, November 7, 2018, YouTube video, 1:09:35–1:14:15,
  3. Rachel Koning Beals, “Covid-19 and Climate Change: ‘The Parallels Are Screaming at Us,’ Says John Kerry,” Market-Watch, April 22, 2020,

Crisis-hyping — What’s at Stake!

Humanity is on track to face “untold suffering” if we continue our current climate change trajectory. A new study, signed by more than 11,000 scientists from around the world, marks the first time a large group of scientists has said the Earth is facing a “climate emergency” caused predominantly by human activities. — “More than 11,000 scientists officially declare a ‘climate emergency,’” CBS News, 11-5-19

But before you jump off a cliff, read this Washington Times report a few days later (11-11-19):

There was something goofy about the petition signed by 11,258 “world scientists” from 153 countries declaring a “climate emergency.”

One “scientist” was named “Mouse, Micky” from the “Micky Mouse Institute for the Blind, Nambia.” Another was Albus Dumbledore, headmaster of Hogwarts. And then there was “Araminta Aardvark” from the fictional University of Neasden.

Among the “Alliance of World Scientists” members who were apparently real people, many identified themselves as teachers, students, administrators, statisticians, economists, technicians, therapists, doctors, psychologists — not climate scientists….

The alliance is a project of the Oregon State University College of Forestry, which invited “all scientists” to add their names to the four-page statement, “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency,” by clicking on a green “sign the article” button on the college’s website.

One might think that such an apocalyptic warning would deserve some fact-checking before the Establishment mass media gave it headlines.  Not so.  The very same day the article appeared in the journal BioScience, the Oregon State University authors’ claims were repeated by CBS News above, Newsweek, Business Insider,, The Washington Post, and undoubtedly more.

Which points to a truly serious threat — a threat to our freedoms from this Establishment-promoted scam.   (Please see our previous posts on the climate-change topic, e.g.: “Fool Me Twice,” “Repeat a Lie Often Enough,” and “UN Climate-Change Hysteria.”)

Indeed, the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations has long promoted the crisis.  According to

Climate change poses grave risks to humanity in the 21st century; confronting it will require a massive transformation of the world’s energy systems.

The CFR website also heralded a new senior fellow for climate change — Anita C. Hill:  “At CFR, Hill is researching and directing a roundtable series on preventing and mitigating the consequences of climate change.”  Although the Council claims to take no “official” policy positions, it clearly promotes an agenda.  Hill recently co-authored a book — Building a Resilient Tomorrow: How to Prepare for the Coming Climate Disruption.

The CFR maintains links with the workhorses of the environmental movement, such as the Environmental Defense Fund. (See our website review of Steve Milloy’s Green Hell).  And CFR members have huge influence in the media.

More problems with the CBS report
The CBS report not only repeated the claims in the BioScience article, but added its own support for alarm.

At the opening of the CBS report, a graphic points to a “new 2050 projection” suggesting that major cities could be underwater by 2050, including “New York City & Surrounding Areas.”

Dr. Arthur Robinson, publisher and editor of the newsletter “Access to Energy” has researched the climate-change topic extensively.  In his July newsletter, Dr. Robinson provides historical graphs of glacier shortening and hydrocarbon use with these comments:

Glacier melting and sea level rise as the Earth emerges from the Little Ice Age are seen to be approximately linear and starting long before significant carbon use.  Moreover sea level rise is proceeding at a rate of seven inches per century — hardly a serious threat.

The CBS report also overlayed a photo of polar bears with the text “11 species threatened by climate change” linking to photos of the 11 species.  However, the previously alleged impact on polar bears has been credibly debunked by Dr. Susan Crockford, an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, in her 2019 book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened.

Two of six recommended categories of action taken from the BioScience article were:  1) Implement a carbon-free economy and prioritize basic human needs rather than affluence.  And 2) stabilize and reduce population growth.  Both are prescriptions for more unconstitutional socialist power.

BioScience article conclusions
The conclusions in the BioScience article reveal the authors’ support for orchestrated revolutionary deception:

Mitigating and adapting to climate change while honoring the diversity of humans entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems. We are encouraged by a recent surge of concern. Governmental bodies are making climate emergency declarations. Schoolchildren are striking. Ecocide lawsuits are proceeding in the courts. Grassroots citizen movements are demanding change, and many countries, states and provinces, cities, and businesses are responding.

Among the article’s cited reviewers, we find Dr. Paul Ehrlich, author of the 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb.  Dr. Ehrlich is well known for predicting crises that never happen.

A financial motive?
A couple of weeks later (11-18-19) Reuters reported that investors were demanding more Internationalist pressure for government action to shift to alternative energies (“Exclusive: Investors step up pressure on global energy watchdog over climate change”):

Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA), faced renewed pressure on Monday from investors and scientists concerned about climate change to overhaul the agency’s projections for fossil fuel demand.

Pension funds, insurers and large companies were among 65 signatories of a joint letter to Birol, seen by Reuters, urging him to do more to support the implementation of the 2015 Paris Agreement to avert catastrophic global warming.

“The year 2020 marks a turning point for the world — the year when we either grasp the challenges and opportunities before us, or continue delaying and obstructing the low-carbon transformation,” the letter said.

The media regularly ignore the fact that alternative energies, such as solar and wind power, simply cannot supply the needs of a modern industrial society, let alone economically.   So implementation of alternative energies requires government pressure and subsidy and would eventually lead to rationing.   Which makes one wonder whether the investors are really concerned about climate change or merely their speculative investments, i.e., speculating on the success of Establishment-supported environmental activism.

However, the media agenda is clear:  Support a revolutionary drive for more government power that would make slaves of us all.

“Fool Me Twice …”

Tens of thousands of high school students in cities nationwide plan to skip classes Friday [9-20-19] to attend Global Climate Strike marches calling for immediate action to end climate change. They will be part of a global joint protest aimed directly at the adults who they say are ignoring the destruction of the planet….

Students in more than 800 locations around the United States plan to go on strike from school for the day to attend protests. “It’s going to be a really, really powerful day, the launch of a new era of climate movement. This is just the beginning for us,” said Katie Eder, 19, who is the executive director of the Future Coalition, a youth-led non-profit helping the groups coordinate….

The protests are timed to begin a week of activism at the United Nations, including a Youth Climate Summit on Saturday and a UN Climate Action Summit on Monday. A second strike is planned for Friday, Sept. 27. — USA Today, 9-19-19

Media reports on the youth demonstrations conveniently ignore the revolutionary orchestration guiding the protesting students (e.g., the radical professors and/or outside adult revolutionaries — with subversive aims — motivating and guiding student action.)  By themselves, high school kids clearly don’t have the connections, independent funding, and experience to organize nationwide, let alone global demonstrations.  However, by ignoring the orchestration, the media helps create the illusion that the protesting students represent the genuine concerns of today’s responsible students.

And, of course, the reports completely ignore the subversive aims driving the “climate change” hysteria — unaccountable global power over you and me. That is the most important lesson for Americans to grasp.

More Americans also need to understand how they are being deceived. An old adage states:  “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”  But how about “fool me a hundred times?”  Then we have a real problem.  The recent student demonstrations illustrate a shop-worn but proven revolutionary tactic for pushing totalitarian measures through a national legislature.

Revolutionary Parliamentarianism
In a secret Communist strategy paper, Jan Kozak, official historian for the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, provided a thorough explanation of the tactic as it was used in the Communist takeover of Czechovakia following World War II. His original Czech paper was titled: “How Parliament Can Play a Revolutionary Part in the Transition to Socialism and the Role of the Popular Masses.”

The uncovered paper with commentary has since been published several times in English as a book under the title And Not a Shot Is Fired.  In his introduction to the American edition, John Howland Snow explained that the Kozak document is a blueprint for how a “representative government can be made authoritarian, legally, piece by piece. The form remains, an empty shell…. And not a shot is fired.”  (The complete RWU press edition is available online at

Freedom First Society published this summary of Kozak’s “revolutionary parliamentarianism” in its booklet The Marxist Attack on the Middle Class, (pp. 36, 37):

Revolutionary Parliamentarianism (a fancy name for the “pincers strategy”). This is a technique for driving change through a national legislature by applying “pressure from above and pressure from below.” Agents of the Conspiracy, using their influence with ostensibly independent grassroots organizations will stage protests and demonstrations demanding that the government take a particular revolutionary action. Other agents in government will introduce a measure claiming it is in response to popular demand. Their measure will be supported at the top by business leaders, think tanks, and scholars. The twin pressures are applied to other legislators making it difficult for them to say no.

The “Climate Change” Pretext
There are many fine books exposing the phony science and claims of the global-warming scaremongers as well as the serious consequences if they should have their way completely. However, most Americans don’t want to take a position on scientific disputes, phony or otherwise.   And the most serious consequence, loss of American freedom, has nothing to do with the science of climate change, anyway.

Nevertheless, it still helps to know that many prominent scientists dispute the man-made global warming scare.  (See, for example, Freedom First Society’s review of Steve Milloy’s 2009 exposé Green Hell, our 2018 post “UN Climate-Change Hysteria, and our 2019 post “Repeat a Lie Often Enough …”.)

Unfortunately, many responsible Americans are neutralized by media casting the battle as a mere partisan dispute over science.   And so these Americans never get to join the real battle. Yet they are desperately needed to help bypass the Establishment media and share the evidence, such as Masters of Deception, of high-level corruption in support of a subversive campaign that threatens our freedom.  So please share this post widely.


Repeat a Lie Often Enough …

“Former Secretary of State John Kerry swiped at President Trump while voicing concerns about the effects of global climate change on U.S. national security during an appearance Wednesday on Capitol Hill…. [Kerry told lawmakers:] ‘Each day that we fail to act on climate change, we are risking the health and security of future generations.’

“The former Obama Cabinet members [Kerry and former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel] also took aim at Trump’s plan to form a committee to re-evaluate the scientific consensus surrounding climate change, with Kerry referring to the plan as ‘a scheme to pretend there are two sides to an issue long since settled.’” — The Hill, 4-9-19

Climate “scientist” John Kerry was following in the footsteps of “Internet inventor” Al Gore, whose claims about man-made global warming were portrayed in the film “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Scam on Display at 1992 Earth Summit
While we don’t claim to be experts on weather and climate factors, we do understand the power grab the alarmists are seeking to justify. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janerio (officially the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development – UNCED) provided a great window into that deception.

Former Washington Governor and former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Dr. Dixy Lee Ray attended the conference, as did Al Gore.  In her subsequent book, Environmental Overkill (1993), Dr. Ray argued:

“First, we must recognize that the environmental movement is not about facts or logic. More and more it is becoming clear that those who support the so-called ‘New World Order’ or World Government under the United Nations have adopted global environmentalism as a basis for the dissolution of independent nations and the international realignment of power.”

A Common Revolutionary Tactic
The incessant climate change warnings also follow the tactic famously used by totalitarians — repeat a lie often enough so that the people accept it as the truth.

One of the environmentalist lies is that there is a consensus among knowledgeable scientists that man-made climate change is a serious threat to mankind.  Dr. Richard Lindzen, now retired from MIT, is one renowned environmental scientist who doesn’t agree.   Last year, he debunked the hysteria in a lecture: “Global Warming and the Two Cultures.” (A link to his lecture, can be found in our website post “UN Climate Change Hysteria.”)

You don’t have to look far to find repetitions of the alarm.  For example, during the April 8th House “debate” over the “Local Water Protection Act,” Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee stated:

“As an Energy and Environment Task Force Co-Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I understand the necessity of this bill and its funding to managing sources of water pollution…. The strain on the marine life is not the only adverse effect to nature, global warming is also worsened when we turn a cheek to decreasing the pollution of our waterways…. Mr. Speaker, we must not wait to take action when the health of our marine life, the state of Global Warming, and the health of our people are being affected.” [Emphasis added.]


UN Climate-Change Hysteria

The world stands on the brink of failure when it comes to holding global warming to moderate levels, and nations will need to take “unprecedented” actions to cut their carbon emissions over the next decade, according to a landmark report by the top scientific body studying climate change….

“There is no documented historic precedent” for the sweeping change to energy, transportation and other systems required to reach 1.5 degrees Celsius, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote in a report requested as part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. — “The world has just over a decade to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say,”Washington Post, 10-8-18

The UN’s IPCC is constantly challenged to ramp up its climate-change hysteria, while the Establishment’s Washington Post is all too ready to report the Internationalist propaganda at face value.

Let’s look first at what some experts have to say regarding the reliability of the claims. And then we’ll examine the subversive agenda that is driving the hysteria.

Don’t Trust the UN’s IPCC
The UN, in cooperation with the Establishment media, regularly promotes the fiction that there is a “scientific consensus” re man-made global warming due to the release of greenhouse gases.  And of course, the media refuses to report the mountains of scientific evidence disputing those claims.  Instead, when forced to mention “the deniers” at all, it characterizes such objective contradictory science as industry-financed or even as a criminal threat to life on the planet.

One authority, who has tried to shine the light of day on the topic, is Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, now retired. In 2015, he wrote in Climate Change: The Facts:

Global warming is about politics and power rather than science.  In science, there is an attempt to clarify, in global warming, language is misused in order to confuse and mislead the public….

Advocates of policies allegedly addressing global warming use models not to predict but rather to justify the claim that catastrophe is possible.

On the same day as the above Washington Post story, Professor Lindzen delivered a lecture for the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London.  His lecture, entitled “Global Warming for the Two Cultures,” attempted to explain what really drives climate change and how non-scientists and non-specialists were being bamboozled by the “carbon dioxide” is the enemy propaganda.  In conclusion, he says:

So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays.

A number of such experts are incensed by the Establishment’s media line supporting the global warming scare, but they don’t get coverage in most media outlets. However, the Investor’s Business Daily, a business alternative to the Establishment’s Wall Street Journal, has reported the opposition to the UN climate-change propaganda.  On June 2, 2015, the Investor’s Business Daily provided a commentary: “Isn’t It About Time Climate Scientists Confessed?”:

We’ve mentioned before that the climate models the United Nations and others use to claim that the planet is becoming dangerously hot are flawed. In fact, they’re just plain wrong. We base our belief in part on the work of Roy Spencer, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who has said that 95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979….

Given that there’s so much evidence contrary to the global warming narrative, climate scientist Patrick J. Michaels justifiably wants to know when other climate scientists will finally admit they’ve been wrong.

“Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper,” Michaels writes on the Cato Institute blog. “The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.”

What’s Driving the Misleading Forecasts?
Unfortunately, the misleading forecasts are not just mistakes or even self-serving science.  The climate change hysteria is designed, with major financial backing, to support the Internationalist power grab and its attack on the independence of nations.  Here we draw from one of many authoritative exposés.

In 2009, Regnery published Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them, by Steve Milloy, which exposed a great deal of the agenda (see our 2009 review, “A Masterful Wake-up Call”).  Milloy provided extensive documentation of how the environmental movement was created, its high-level funding, and what its agenda is.  As Milloy expresses it:

Make no mistake: living green is really about someone else microregulating you — downsizing your dreams and plugging each one of us into a brand new social order for which we never bargained. It’s about … having the boundaries of your life drawn by others.

The central concept of this book is that there is hardly any area of your life that the greens consider off limits to intrusion. There is almost no personal behavior of yours that they consider too trivial or sacrosanct to regulate.

Milloy documents that a primary green objective is to create scarcity, which then provides the pretext for government regulation and rationing.  And what better way to bring a modern industrial economy to its knees than to starve it of energy?  The current tactic to achieve energy scarcity is to emphasize the development of “renewable” energy, while attaching burdensome strings to the development of resources that can supply our immediate energy needs.  Colorado, as Milloy points out, is the Saudi Arabia of shale oil. Yet this resource has been off limits to development.

Milloy concludes: “But if the government were to use an energy crisis as a pretext to tighten its grip on the energy supply, it would vastly expand the state’s ability to dictate the everyday parameters of how we live our lives….. [E]nergy — the very thing that has enabled the American way of life — can also be used to quash it.”

Milloy’s book also touches on the broader internationalist agenda that threatens the sovereignty of nations.  He titles one section:  “National Sovereignty: It Was Nice While It Lasted” and notes: “[T]he greens aim to use the specter of a global warming catastrophe to subjugate America to global governance.” And he explains the dangers of global governance to our system of government and the constitutional protections for our rights.

Remember that Milloy wrote this in 2009.  With that background the current UN alarm can be seen for the truly dangerous threat it is:

“It’s like a deafening, piercing smoke alarm going off in the kitchen. We have to put out the fire,” said Erik Solheim, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program. — Washington Post, 10-8-18

The hidden, subversive agenda must be exposed!

Global Warming Models Prove Fallacy of AGW

It’s always fascinating to see the public responses to columns challenging the notion that man is “causing” the earth to warm. Predictable are the personal attacks against such purveyors of contrarian dogma, as well as references to the favorite buzzwords and invalidated theses. It’s difficult to understand such fierce loyalty and fealty to a theory invalidated by their own models. Whether they’re looking for meaning in life by “saving the world” by diminishing their CO2 footprint, or they’re susceptible to the mainstream media propagandistic endorsement, it’s hard to say.

Let’s start with the obvious, which for some is not obvious, nor easily accepted. According to NASA, globalFig.A2 temperatures have not increased for 15 years. Here is the chart for actual temperatures as published by NASA clearly illustrating the cessation of warming in 1998.


The plot appears dramatic, but notice the scale on the left axis. From 1880 to 2013 the range is .8 of one degree Celsius.



We can then look at the chart developed by former UN IPCC Lead Author & Climatologist Dr. John Christy which plots 73 global warming models. The models’ projections are based on climate sensitivity to manmade carbon dioxide. In other words, the models reflect the premise that man is causing, or at least contributing significantly to, warming of the planet. Yet not one of the models even comes close to reality based on NASA’s empirical data. The mean average for those models is nearly 1 degree Celsius higher than what has been observed for the past 15 years.

Why is this significant? Because it shows that, based on their own theories, and their own calculations of climateFig._A3 sensitivity to manmade CO2, that they’re all wrong. If their theories about the greenhouse potency and feedback of carbon dioxide emissions were correct, their model projections would match reality. And it’s not the earth that’s at fault; it’s the models and their underlying theory! When they’re so wrong for so long, how can anyone with a semblance of cognitive functionality even possibly consider taking them seriously!  Fig._A3

I can’t help but conclude what a phenomenal job it is to be an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) scientist. Come up with these alarmist theories to provide global governments the premise to regulate and tax what we exhale as a pollutant; rake in hundreds of millions from government grants to do so; generate sophisticated models to ring the warning bells of catastrophic manmade global warming; be proven totally wrong empirically, and yet still be heralded by media, academia, environmentalist activists, and low-information citizens, as ultimate authorities on the issue, and claim to be right!

With such an abysmal record of projecting reality, now 15 years and running, it would be like a stock analyst in my industry forecasting a decade-and-a-half of bull markets, and be proclaimed a market guru even if all 15 years were bear markets! It’s logically impossible to be right, as claimed by media, academicians, and AGW sycophants, when the alarmist’s calculations, as evidenced by their projections, are completely wrong!

Last month the German news publican Der Spiegel interviewed Hans von Storch, renowned German Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg. Storch said “scientists are so puzzled by the 15-year standstill in global warming that if the trend continues their models could be fundamentally wrong.” Could be? Do you think? After fifteen years of being wrong, it seems rather obvious that the underlying premises have already been empirically invalidated. He continued, “We are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”

“There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us,” said Storch. “The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes,” Storch added. Now that’s an astute statement of the obvious. And notice how he was more concerned that they were all wrong, rather than that the earth was facing cataclysmic warming.

And just a quick note on the “97% of scientists” buy into the AGW hypothesis statement so often repeated by the alarmists. This figure of “consensus” originated from the “Doran Survey.” This was a nonscientific survey of 77 climate scientists polled for a master’s thesis. And it’s been debunked as a flawed and statistically invalid “survey.”

So how do most scientists really feel about AGW? According to Forbes, citing peer-reviewed surveys in February, only 36% of geoscientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis, and a solid majority believe what warming is occurring is from natural sources.

If the AGW argument was correct, their models would be accurate. Since they are not, their basic premises are obviously flawed. And to say there’s a consensus is equally fallacious.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is a regular contributor to the Idaho State Journal. He is also President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at

Learning Lessons from California

This past week California Governor Jerry Brown announced that his state is facing a “ballooning” budget deficit of more than $16 billion. In an interview on CBS News, Brown said, “We’re not some tired country of Europe. We’re a buoyant, dynamic society that will both discipline itself on a daily basis but it will on the long-term plant the seeds of future growth.”

What is inscrutably lost on the governor is that the policies that have brought California to the edge of a fiscal cliff are mostly the same ones of those “tired countries of Europe,” which have manifest the same degree of financial discipline that California has practiced.

Many trends, fads, and even governmental policies have originated in the Golden State that has even given rise to a widely accepted aphorism, “As California goes, so goes the nation.” It’s the verity of that truism that makes the state’s financial problems a portent of things to come for the rest of the nation if we fail to learn from their experience.

Joel Kotkin, one of the nation’s premier demographers, has identified the most significant contributing factors to California’s problems. He points out that four million more people have left California in the last two decades than have moved there from other states. This is in sharp contrast with the 1980s when 100,000 more Americans were settling in California each year than were leaving. Most of those leaving are young families.

They’re leaving because they can’t afford to live there. Everything from food, energy and taxes to real estate and housing, are beyond the financial reach of young families. Kotkin points to restrictions and massive regulations on development and housing that have artificially limited housing supply. As he explains, California’s so-called “smart growth” plans literally force middle-class families into less expensive, high-density housing, or out of state.

From his analysis, housing is merely one front of what he refers to as the “progressive war on the middle class.” The high cost of energy has had a dramatic impact on everyone, but especially on the middle class. Policies restricting traditional sources of energy, and state financed advantages granted to green energy producers have resulted in skyrocketing energy costs. The price per kilowatt hour of electricity is nearly twice what it is in Idaho, and more than 50% above the national average, according to

Yet state policy makers are doubling down on green energy and on the restriction to traditional producers, which are expected to make the rates rise even more. For California has enthusiastically embraced cap-and-trade, with AB32, “…which will raise the cost of energy and drive out manufacturing jobs without making even a dent in global carbon emissions. Then there are the renewable portfolio standards, which mandate that a third of the state’s energy come from renewable sources like wind and the sun by 2020,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

Most of these costs are borne by the middle class since those below the poverty level get state assistance and the wealthy can afford it. But the high energy costs drive manufacturing and other blue-collar energy users either out of business or out of the state.

And not only are energy costs much higher, but with two decades worth of policy and tax-advantaged investment in green energy, the promised windfall of jobs has not occurred. Only 2% of the job force in California is in green energy, roughly the same as Texas, which maintains a vastly different green energy policy. Rather, in part due to the higher operating costs in California created by onerous regulation, companies, and their jobs, have been exiting the state. California currently has the third highest unemployment rate in the nation at 10.9%.

The Golden State has significant gas and oil resources, yet policy and regulation preclude utilizing them. An estimated 25 billion barrels of oil are sitting untapped in the vast Monterey and Bakersfield shale deposits. Over the past decade, Texas has created 200,000 oil and gas jobs, while California has hardly added any. The Wall Street Journal pointed out recently, that, “The state’s remaining energy producers have been slowing down as the regulatory environment becomes ever more hostile even as producers elsewhere, including in rustbelt states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, ramp up. The oil and gas jobs the Golden State political class shuns pay around $100,000 a year on average.”

“You see the great tragedy of California is that we have all this oil and gas, we won’t use it,” Mr. Kotkin says. “We have the richest farm land in the world, and we’re trying to strangle it.” The latter point references how water restrictions aimed at protecting the delta smelt fish are endangering Central Valley farmers. Kotkin asserts that is the kind of “anti-human” public policy that is driving agriculture out and is impacting so many of the state’s economic sectors.

Kotkin explains the demographic changes are occurring because of state policy. “Californians are voting much more based on social issues and less on fiscal ones…” Consequently, it’s a much less favorable climate for employers than ever before. “As progressive policies drive out moderate and conservative members of the middle class, California’s politics become even more left-wing. It’s a classic case of natural selection, and increasingly the only ones fit to survive in California are the very rich and those who rely on government spending. In a nutshell, ‘the state is run for the very rich, the very poor, and the public employees,’” Kotkin explained recently to the Wall Street Journal.

Middle-class families are fleeing California in droves. As a result, California is turning into a two-and-a-half-class society. On top are the “entrenched incumbents” who inherited their wealth or came to California early and made their money, and the self-made technology millionaires. Then there’s a shrunken middle class of public employees and, miles below, a permanent welfare class. As it stands today, about 40% of Californians don’t pay any income tax and a quarter are on Medicaid. It’s “a very scary political dynamic,” Kotkin laments.

Meanwhile, taxes are decimating the private sector economy. According to the Tax Foundation, California has the 48th-worst business tax climate. “The wealthy pay a top rate of 10.3%, the third-highest in the country, while middle-class workers—those who earn more than $48,000—pay a top rate of 9.3%, which is higher than what millionaires pay in 47 states. And state leaders want to raise tax rates even more,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

The reason taxes have been increasing to now unsustainable levels, is that Sacramento has been unable to curtail spending. State spending has more than doubled in the past ten years. Costs for state pensions have increased by over 150% in the same time period, as demands from state employee unions have required a greater percentage of the budget. Unable to muster the discipline to reduce spending to match economic realities, the only tool the state seems to know how to use is tax increases.

The lessons from California are many, and this analysis only scratches the surface. The question is, will we as a nation learn them before or after we’re in the same malaise?

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is a regular contributor to the Idaho State Journal. He is also President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at

Beware the False Idea that Treaties Override the Constitution

The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will not make the earth one degree cooler. But in reality the Conference is not about CO2 emissions or the temperature of the planet. It’s about power — it’s a sheer, unmitigated grab for control over every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth. And on top of their power over all living (or dead) human beings, the engineers of this enormous fraud hope to pocket all that remains of the world’s wealth — lots of slaves and lots of money. Not a very complicated purpose.

Please don’t credit President Obama for engineering this massive plot. He deserves only the International Impudence and Audacity Award, something he my want to hang next to his Nobel Peace Prize. Remember, he just follows the rules. He is not really in charge; he is the hired runner trying to impress his masters by how fast he can carry their baton to the finish line.

At Copenhagen Mr. Obama will likely sign anything that’s laid on the table. But that will not, as some voices conjecture, signal the end of the U.S.A. The December meeting is preliminary to the big kill. It serves two goals: first to intensify the fear of a climate crisis; and second, to get the American people accustomed to the heresy that “treaty laws can override the Constitution.”

Origin of the Myth

The frightful idea that U.S. treaties with foreign nations supercede the Constitution has been regularly promoted since the Eisenhower era. It was given a big boost in 1952 when Secretary of State1 John Foster Dulles, a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), made the following statement:

… congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the states and give them to the Federal Government, or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights.2

It would be hard to find a more preposterous assertion. Sadly, however, many citizens have been led to believe that treaties do override the Constitution. Could anyone really think our founding fathers spent four months in convention, limiting the size, power and scope of government, and then provided for their work to be destroyed by one lousy treaty?

But one might object, what about Article VI? Article VI establishes the supremacy of U.S. laws and treaties made within the bounds of the Constitution. It is called the Supremacy Clause, because it places federal laws and treaties that are made pursuant to the Constitution above state constitutions, laws. and treaties.

Some Important History

This was needed because, contrary to their agreement under the Articles of Confederation, certain states had violated their trust and entered into treaties with foreign powers. During the convention, Madison said: “Experience had evinced a constant tendency in the States to encroach on federal authority; to violate national Treaties, to infringe the rights and interests of each other.”3

State-made pacts often conflicted with peace and trade treaties wanted by the Confederation Congress for the benefit of all thirteen states, making it hard for Congress to consummate better agreements with other nations. This also led to fierce contention between the states in their effort to monopolize the import of goods from Europe and the Indian tribes. But more serious dangers arose in matters of security, for should one state be at war with a foreign power while a sister state honors its peace agreement with the same enemy, the security of the entire Confederation would be threatened.4

In an effort to head off such dangers, the Confederation Congress frequently attempted to nullify state-made treaties in the state courts (there were no federal courts). But as might be expected, the state judges ruled inevitably in favor of their own states, pursuant to the state laws and constitutions.

The 1787 Convention corrected that problem by making certain only federal treaties would be recognized as valid. In this light, it is not hard to understand why paragraph two of Article VI is worded as follows:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Upon ratification of the Constitution, the state treaties were nullified. Thereafter, only federal treaties were recognized as supreme, regardless of any remaining state provisions to the contrary. Moreover, under the new Constitution the founders established a Supreme Court, granting it original jurisdiction over treaty controversies, and thereby removing from state judges jurisdiction over treaty cases. In addition to quelling strife among the states, Article VI accomplished a major objective of the Convention, mainly that of placing the United States in a position to speak to the world with one voice.

United States treaties are created when proposed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The power of the President and the Senate, in their treaty-making capacity, was never intended to be a power greater than the Constitution.

Citizens who met in the state ratifying conventions (1787 to 1790) to examine with great care the provisions of the proposed Constitution had a correct understanding of the Supremacy Clause. During the ratifying debates, James Madison answered questions regarding the new national charter and commented on the extent of the treaty-making power under Article VI:

I do not conceive that power is given to the President and Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of its delegation.5

In the same discussion Madison said: “Here, the supremacy of a treaty is contrasted with the supremacy of the laws of the states. It cannot be otherwise supreme.” That is, a treaty cannot in any other manner or situation be supreme.

Thomas Jefferson: “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty-making to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”

But we do have a Constitution. Its life and viability depend entirely on the small number of citizens who, 1) understand the document and 2) who equally understand the forces at work to destroy it. At this point enough time has passed, and enough false teachings have been promulgated, to cause modern Americans to fall for the treaty power ploy. It is not surprising that John Foster Dulles, a ranking member of the CFR, should in 1952 circulate the treaty-power heresy that yet prevails. We must wonder also by what objective Lord Christopher Monckton overstates the scope of the Copenhagen conference and repeats the Dulles heresy that U.S. treaties absolutely over-ride the Constitution.

It is time for serious reflection on the words of Edmond Burke, “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” We who work to preserve the sovereignty of the United States must work energetically to expose the Dulles delusion — the ridiculous idea that treaties have intrinsic powers greater than the Constitution. We can do little to stop the President from signing accords at Copenhagen and other places,6 but we can do much to render his antics impotent by building a better informed public.


1 Dulles actually made this statement during a speech in Louisville on April 2, 1952, shortly before Eisenhower appointed him Secretary of State.

2 Quoted by Frank E. Holman, Story of the Bricker Amendment, (New York Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., 1954), pp. 14, 15.

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Farrand, Vol. I, p. 164.

4 Benjamin Franklin’s Plan of UnionAmericaVol. 3, p. 47.

5 Debates on the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., second edition, Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott Company, 1907, Vol. III, p. 514.

6 President Obama is expected to seek ratification of three major pacts aimed at reducing U.S. nuclear weapons, in addition to pressing for ratification of the UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty.


The Global Warming Hoax

The “Science” 

“The global warming alarm is dressed up as science, but it is not science. It’s propaganda.” — Professor Paul Reiter, Pasteur Institute, Paris, member of the UN’s IPCC. Ref.:The Great Global Warming Swindle.

“There is no direct evidence which links 20th Century global warming to anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gases.”— Professor Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Ref.:The Great Global Warming Swindle.

“We’ve just been told lies.That’s what it comes down to.” — Nigel Calder, former editor, New Scientist.Ref.:The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a 2007 television documentary produced in the UK by WAGTV (a DVD of the program can be ordered from their store at A companion website for the DVD,, also presents many of the scientific arguments.

The Scientific “Consensus”

Another lie is that the world’s climate experts, even those on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), agree that the evidence now supports the theory of man-made global warming.

“And to build the number up to 2500 [IPCC officials] have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on — anyone who ever came close to them. And none of them are asked to agree. Many of them disagree.” Professor Richard Lindzen, M.I.T. and member of the IPCC.Ref.: The Great Global Warming Swindle.

“The final conclusions [of the UN’s IPCC reports] are politically driven.”— Professor Philip Stott, University of London.Ref.:The Great Global Warming Swindle.


Why are the opinions of leading scientists who offer a contrary view suppressed?

Even more important, why are we being lied to and how is deception on such a grand scale possible?

As just one example, according to Wikipedia, Al Gore’s Academy Award winning global warming “documentary” An Inconvenient Truth grossed $49 million at box offices worldwide. The official website for An Inconvenient, claims:

“Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.”

We cannot expect to prosper as a free nation when few political leaders are willing to challenge this swindle and in fact most are content to reinforce it.

So where does the passion in support of the man-made global warming hoax originate? Freedom First Society believes that the best explanation for the widespread propaganda is that the “crisis” hoax supports an immense power grab.

High level internationalist Insiders have selected the global warming scare as one pretext to help them drive forward their revolutionary “new world order.” In particular, they seek to persuade independent nations to submit to world government, cleverly controlled by an elite few from behind the scenes.

An early window to that agenda was provided in a classified 1962 study, entitled A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations. It’s author, M.I.T. professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield, was a member of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and had recently served with the State Department’s disarmament staff.

The Bloomfield study suggested that world government could be obtained without the threat of Communism if there was “a crisis, a war, or a brink-of-war situation so grave or commonly menacing that deeply-rooted attitudes and practices are sufficiently shaken to open the possibility of a revolution in world political arrangements.”

The Bloomfield study was completed in 1962, but its conclusions have persisted as a fundamental foundation of Insider strategy. When the Berlin Wall started to come down on November 9, 1989, signaling the orchestrated “demise” of Communism, the Insiders wasted no time in heralding new enemies.

Immediately, George Kennan, touted as one of the Establishment “wisemen,” would write in a column for the 11-12-1989 Washington Post, “[T]he great enemy is not the Soviet Union but the rapid deterioration of our planet as a supporting structure for civilized life.”

In the months ahead, many others would echo Kennan’s concerns. In a March 27, 1990 op-ed for the New York Times, CFR member Michael Oppenheimer, a scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, wrote: “Global warming, ozone depletion, deforestation and overpopulation are the four horsemen of a looming 21st century apocalypse. As the cold war recedes, the environment is becoming the No. 1 international security concern.”

The following year, Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider included this admission against interest in The First Global Revolution, A Report by the [Internationalist] Council of the Club of Rome:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All of these dangers are caused by human intervention…. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Not surprisingly, honest climate scientists rarely have a deep understanding of the big-picture “politics” driving the “global warming” scare. An exception was the late Dixy Lee Ray. In her 1993 Environmental Overkill — Whatever Happened to Common Sense?, the former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission wrote:

“More and more it is becoming clear that those who support the so-called ‘New World Order’ or World Government under the United Nations have adopted global environmentalism as a basis for the dissolution of independent nations and the international realignment of power.”

Top Insiders have certainly sought to create new international authority to address their alleged crisis. One of books guiding elitists in 1991 was Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology. Signaling his support for the book’s message, David Rockefeller, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and founder of the Trilateral Commisssion, wrote the foreword.

In that book, the joint authors (Jim MacNeil of Canada, Peter Winsemius of Holland, and Taizo Yakushiji of Japan), argued for “a new global partnership expressed in a revitalized international system in which an Earth Council, perhaps the Security Council with a broader mandate, maintains the interlocked environmental and economic security of the planet.”

Follow the Money

Of course, these Insiders depended on other strategies to turn their “crisis” into public policy. One of these was the tried and true tactic of “revolutionary parliamentarianism” also known as “pressure from above and pressure from below.”

With this strategy, revolutionaries at the top orchestrate the appearance of a widespread “consensus.” Their allies in legislative bodies can then use this external pressure to justify revolutionary measures. An excellent example of this generated pressure was the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro. Although elites at the Council on Foreign Relations pretty much had the conclusions worked out in advance, the Earth Summit was staged to give this agenda the appearance of planetary democracy at work and to hype the “consensus” to the world.

As an example of how this phony democracy — “the world” in action — was hyped, the authors of Beyond Interdependence wrote: “The Earth Summit will likely be the last chance for the world, in this century at least, to seriously address and arrest the accelerating environmental threats to economic development, national security, and human survival.”

Few Americans encountering media reports of the Earth Summit would have guessed the extent to which vocal leaders and groups at the Summit were beholden to Insider funding. For example, Lester Brown founded his Worldwide Institute in 1974 with funding from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. According to the Worldwide Institute annual reports, “the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Winthrop Rockefeller Trust provide core funding for the State of the World series. “The State of the World report was widely cited as authority for predictions of impending planetary doom by those attending the Earth Summit.

Many examples of the extensive funding of the environmental “movement” by Establishment foundations can be cited. A few of these include: Ford Foundation grants to the Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Resources Institute; MacArthur Foundation grants to the Center for International Environmental Law, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the World Resources Institute; Mott Foundation funding for the Center for International Environmental Law, the Earth Action Network, Friends of the Earth, and the World Resources Institute; and Rockefeller Brothers Fund grants to the Earth Action Alert Network, the Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

These strategies of an internationalist Conspiracy for building its world hegemony are moving rapidly to completion at the dawn of the 21st Century. For the concerned visitor to our website, we highly recommend reading Organize for Victory! This inexpensive ($9.95) paperback provides a more thorough look at the agenda behind the global warming disinformation along with a necessary and realistic solution to stop the underlying revolution that threatens our freedoms.

Receive Alerts

Get the latest news and updates from Freedom First Society.

This will close in 0 seconds