In their own words – the truth about their real motivations

David Evans, who consulted for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) 1999-2005 and 1998-2010, and was a believer in AGW until the evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself in 1998 to 2006, when he became a skeptic.

“The AGW scam involves a “regulating class” of believers, consisting of the UN, western governments, major banks and finance houses, NGOs and greenies, totalitarian leftists, government-funded scientists, academia, renewables corporations and the mainstream news media. Against them are the doubters: independently-funded scientists, private-sector middle class, and amateurs. The regulating class does not try to hide its belief that it is cleverer and morally superior. Their solution is regulation of the whole world’s economy by themselves, which was the object at the failed Copenhagen climate conference. On climate change, the regulating class has won over the leadership of most professional and business organizations by lobbying and pressure.”


Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation

“The free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present—and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. “


Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, visited Australia in July 2011. In referring to the ideological orientations of those individuals and organisations who have significant financial and other vested interests in propagating the ‘Doctrine’ of anthropogenic induced climate change, President Klaus said: “They want to change us, to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences, they want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. What is endangered is freedom, the climate is okay.”

After noting that today’s human-induced climate change alarmists are the ideological descendents of the zero and negative population growth advocates of the 1970s who erroneously forecast that human population pressures would lead to increases in global poverty and growing shortages in resources, President Klaus went on to add: “They hate us, the humans, they consider us selfish and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them. I used to live in a similar world — called communism — and I know that it led to the worst environmental damage the world has ever experienced.”


• Maurice Strong, senior advisor to Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary-General who chaired the gigantic (40,000 participants) “U.N. Conference on Environment and Development” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 , who was responsible for putting together the Kyoto Protocol with thousands of bureaucrats, diplomats, and politicians, stated: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse….isn’t it our job to bring that about”]

•”In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.“ Quote by the Club of Rome.

• Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Issues, seconded Strong’s statement: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

• Richard Benedick, a deputy assistant secretary of state who headed policy divisions of the U.S. State Department, stated: “A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

• “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” -Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

• “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” -Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University

• “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace“

• Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, First chairman of the IPCC

• “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” -Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

• IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer in November 2010 admitted “one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.” Instead, climate change policy is about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

• “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

• “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

• “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
– Professor Maurice King

• “The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.” – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

• “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

• “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

• “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

• “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

• “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

• “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
– Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

• “All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

• “Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

• “Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

• “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

• “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

• “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
– United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

• “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

• “… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

• “One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

• “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

• “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

• “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
– Christopher Manes, Earth First!

• “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
– David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

• “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
– Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

• “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
– Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

• “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

• “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

• “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
-Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

• The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

• “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis.”
– David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive manager

• “Humanity is sitting on a 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 out entire planet’s climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced – a catastrophe of our own making.”
– Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth

• “By the end of this century, climate change will reduce the human population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Revenge of Gaia

• “Climate Change will result in a catastrophic, global seal level rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”
– Greenpeace International (It has risen less than 7 inches in 100 years and is decelerating)

• “We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth.”
– Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

• “In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years from today it will probably be too late.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

• “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”
– UN Commission on Global Governance report

• “The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human species has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution. Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature.”
– Rene Dubos, board member Planetary Citizens

• “A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

• “Adopting a central organizing principle means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, to halt the destruction of the environment.”
– Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

• “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
– UN Agenda 21

• “Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

• “In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
– Dr. Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General

• “Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.”
– Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute

Farewell Bob Brown; Farewell Greens

By Geoff Brown

The influence of the Greens is declining and Bob Brown has jumped from a sinking Titanic albeit a tiny titanic (official oxymoron).

In a column from the Sunday Telegraph Miranda Devine wrote a piece entitled, in my printed copy of the paper “A woodchip off the old block” and on-line “Beware a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

On a rural slanted social website, Christine Milne opened up a group page to try to woo the people from the bush. However she underestimated us and she couldn’t stand the heat and left the grounds. Now she is trying to whoop up country credentials again.

Milne, 58, made a pitch to rural and regional voters, claiming “the Greens and the bush” simply misunderstood each other. “I’m going out there as a country person to say to other country people it is time that the Greens and country people worked together.”

Miranda reports the Green’s failures:

Good luck with that, considering greenies are the chief cause of grief to the bush.

Let us count the ways.

Forestry towns destroyed by irrational green tree worship.
Uncontrollable bushfires caused, not by global warming, but by green opposition to hazard reduction.
National parks left to feral animals which rampage through neighbouring farms.
Dams never built thanks to greenie protests.
Wind turbines plonked all over bucolic hillsides.
A live cattle industry brought to its knees.
The Wild Rivers assault on the ability of entrepreneurial Cape York Aborigines to earn a living from their land.
Dangerous highways which kill country people in disproportionate numbers, because green tape blocks road upgrades.
Bans on rodeos and coal mining.
Sky rocketing energy prices, thanks to the Greens-mandated carbon tax and clean energy follies.
Full-frontal attacks on farming by greenies arrogant enough to presume they know better than a family who has earned a living off land they have cultivated for generations.

Greenies are as much the enemy of country people as locusts or droughts. The difference is that natural disasters come and go.

Greens never stop. And like an old fashioned protection racket, they wreck the joint and now they want to talk.
Miranda writes:

(Milne’s) whimsical gardening blog, with its talk of gooseberry pie and luscious pictures of home-grown passionfruit is as unthreatening and cosy as politicians get.

Perhaps she thought that her foray into the rural slanted social website would be “as unthreatening and cosy as politicians get.” Unfortunately, us “rubes” on the rural slanted social website were a little more sophisticated than she expected.

For the sake of the future of the country, let’s hope and pray we are seeing the end of the destructive, watermelon greens.

Study: Hybrid car owners unlikely to buy another

By Bailey Johnson

CBS) – Hybrid cars have gained praise, derision and driven technological advancement since their introduction. Sales have surged on the back of higher gas prices, inspiring many automakers to focus on turning out gas-electric vehicles.

But the one thing hybrid cars may not be able to inspire is loyalty. A recent study shows that nearly two-thirds of hybrid owners decide not to purchase another hybrid vehicle when it’s time to trade in.

R.L. Polk, an automotive marketing research company, released a study this week showing that only 35-percent of hybrid owners purchased another gas-electric vehicle when trading in during 2011. Repurchase rates vary across hybrid models, with the highest percentage of hybrid loyalty going to the Toyota Prius. Removing that car from the model shows a repurchase rate under 25-percent.

“Having a hybrid in the product lineup can certainly give a brand a competitive ege when it comes to attracting new customers,” says Brad Smith, director of Polk’s Loyalty Management Practice. “The repurchase rates of hybrid vehicles are an indication that consumers are continuing to seek alternative solutions to high fuel prices.”

Fuel prices and hybrid loyalty seem to go hand in hand. When gas prices were stable during the third quarter of 2011, only 31-percent of hybrid owners decided to repurchase. That number jumped to 40-percent in the fourth quarter when gas prices spiked.

Hybrid vehicles represent 2.4-percent of the new car market in the U.S., according to Polk, down from a high of 2.9-percent in 2008.

The study also revealed that hybrid loyalty was not significantly higher in “eco-friendly” markets like Los Angeles and Seattle than the rest of the country. The Polk study shows that the highest hybrid loyalty rates are in Florida, which had three of the top-five repurchase rates.

UK Sea Level Changes–A Case Study At North Shields

April 12, 2012

Paul Homewood

Amidst the latest controversy surrounding Envisat and their unexplained retroactive changes to their satellite sea level database (which, yes you’ve guessed it, have increased sea level rise in the last few years), we should not lose sight of tide gauges, which have been monitoring sea levels for a century or more.

Tide gauges, while not being subject to the calibration issues that satellite measurements face, have one major drawback. Many coastal locations round the world are subject to isostatic changes. Since the end of the Ice Age, land previously covered by glaciers has ben slowly rebounding, while others have been sinking. In the UK the effect can be seen on this map.

Rates of Isostatic Rebound
in Great Britain (in mm/yr)

An added complication comes when silting and erosion affect coastal areas. However, although these factors can affect absolute sea level changes, they don’t affect relative sea level changes, at least not over short time scales as their effect is a very long term process.

In this series, I will be looking at a cross section of UK sites and examining tide gauge records to see if there are any trends in the rate of sea level rise. We start at North Shields, which is situated on the Tyne in the north east of England. On the map above, it fits perfectly into the “green” zone, where isostatic change is pretty much zero.

Figure 1 shows the annual mean sea levels there between 1896 and 2009. (There is no data for 2010 or 2011). (Full data is available from PMSML – )


Since 1896, the level has increased from 6793mm to 7007mm, an increase of 214mm or 188mm per century or 7.4 inches. This figure is, of course, pretty much in line with global estimates over the last century, so we seem to have picked a fairly representative site!

But has the rate of increase been increasing in recent decades? The evidence from Figure 1 would suggest no. There is a small blip upwards between 1992 and 2002 following a big drop in 1991, but this has already been reversed and the 10 year average line since 1970 is bang on the long term trend.

But we don’t have to rely on eyeballing this graph. We can go one better than that and look at the year on year changes in Figure 2.


The 10 year average shows quite clearly that the rate of change has not increased since the start of the record. Figure 3 shows the 10 year average line in much closer focus.


Sea level rises over the last 10 years are below the long term mean (red line).

DEFRA are forecasting a sea level rise of 13mm / year by the end of the century. Perhaps someone should tell the North Sea.

Obama Administration’s War on Natural Gas Continues To Expand

Link to Press Release

Washington, D.C. – Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, blasted President Obama’s executive order, “Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources,” released today that will coordinate the activities of thirteen or more different federal agencies on natural gas development.

“President Obama now believes that his administration’s efforts to regulate natural gas production have become so complicated and convoluted that he needs yet another government board to coordinate them,” Senator Inhofe said, “While he makes disingenuous claims about how this working group is to increase natural gas production, we all know that the more layers of government involved, the greater the likelihood that he can stall efforts towards development. He already has ten federal agencies looking into hydraulic fracturing with the express purpose of trying to find something wrong with it – now President Obama wants to add yet another layer of bureaucracy. And to make matters worse, this working group incorporates even more federal agencies in the mix, bringing the total to thirteen with the possibility of more. So why, when states are already regulating the process safely, efficiently, and effectively is President Obama pushing for the involvement of more than thirteen different federal agencies? The answer is simple: with an election on the horizon – and the American people are feeling the economic pain of his disastrous war on fossil fuels – he’s trying to pretend he supports natural gas production, while ensuring that the federal government does everything possible to impede hydraulic fracturing.

“While President Obama continues to push for increased federal regulations, Republicans believe that states have demonstrated that they are far better equipped to regulate fracking on a regional basis. Just ask the experts in my home state of Oklahoma: the first use of hydraulic fracturing took place in Duncan, Oklahoma in 1949, and in over 60 years there has not been one confirmed case of ground water contamination from fracked formations. Oklahoma is a leader in natural gas development, with 43,000 producing natural gas wells which support hundreds of thousands of jobs and contribute billions to our state’s economy every year. The last thing we need is more federal entanglement in natural gas production that would hinder these jobs and economic growth all for little to no environmental benefits.

“That’s why I recently introduced the Fracturing Regulations are Effective in State Hands Act, (FRESH Act), S. 2248; my bill ensures that states will continue to have the sole authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing – not the federal government. That way, President Obama will not be able to impose federal regulations that will stop natural gas development in this country; it would keep his administration from achieving one part of their war on affordable energy.”

The Environmental Terrorizing of Children

By Alan Caruba

In many ways, the worst aspect of environmentalism is why Greens not only feel free to terrorize children with doomsday scenarios, but feel compelled to do so.

I have been reviewing books for some fifty years and with the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” in 1962 and books such as Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb” have been offering scenarios intended to move people and governments to take action that, in retrospect, were based on bad “science” and absurd doomsday predictions.

If you were fooled by global warming, they are counting on you to be fooled again by “sustainability”, their reworking of Marx’s communism in the form of a grandiose scheme to control all of the Earth’s bounty. In June the United Nations will hold a Rio+20 conference that will declare that governments exist to ensure “sustainable well-being and happiness.” The Declaration of Independence offers the opportunity to pursue happiness. It does not guarantee it, nor does it suggest that it is government’s job to provide it.

A key element of the Green’s endless indoctrination schemes has been to reach children, the most vulnerable among us and for this reason our schools have been turned into Green prisons where their version of the Earth is pumped into the minds of children here and around the world.

Their primary teaching tool is fear. Fear that the oceans will rise and wipe out entire cities. Fear that the rainforests are disappearing. Fear that entire species are being destroyed by the hand of man. Fear that the use of any kind of fuel, coal, natural gas, and oil is despoiling the planet.

I have reviewed books for some fifty years at this point and I could not put a number on the books for children that hammer home these and other terrifying themes. One crossed my desk the other day, “Our House is Round: A Kid’s Book About Why Protecting Our Earth Matters” by Yolanda Kondonassis and illustrated by Joan Brush. It has been called “the perfect children’s introduction to environmental issues” by Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund.

The author is not a biologist, a geologist, a meteorologist, or any other kind of scientist. She is a Grammy-nominated classical harpist. A harpist!

“Our Earth has gotten messy. What should we do?” she asks her young reader. What does she mean by “messy”? Her answer is that “cars, trucks, and factories make pollution, a kind of dirty gas or liquid that goes out into the air and into our rivers, lakes, and oceans.” This book is written for children age five to nine!

Imagine now what it must be like to be that age and be told that the air is polluted and the water is as well. This verges on child abuse.

“Pollution goes up into the sky and forms a blanket of gas that holds heat within Earth’s atmosphere. That makes our whole Earth warmer and leads to unclean air for breathing, melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels, and extreme weather patterns. Scientists call this warming of our Earth’s temperature CLIMATE CHANGE.”

It is a LIE. The Earth has been cooling for fifteen years.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a gas as vital to all life on Earth as oxygen is to the life of living creatures. Without it, not a single blade of grass or tree or the vegetation we call “crops” would not grow. Livestock and wildlife depend on that vegetation. If you are age five to nine, you likely are unaware of this.

This book and all the others that incorporate these lies are a form of psychological terror.

The same week I received “Our House is Round”, I also received “The Big Green Book of the Big Blue Sea” and “Earth-Friendly Buildings, Bridges, and More.” You could stack all the environmentally-themed children’s books I’ve seen and it would reach up several stories.

They are a corruption of geophysical and biological science. They have nothing to do with “saving the planet” and everything to do with distorting children’s understanding of the real world.

It does not matter that the Ms. Kondonassis thinks she is serving humanity. The great lie of communism is that it will create a collectivist utopia. In reality it has always depended on terror to maintain itself and it has failed wherever it has been tried. Environmentalism is its latest permutation.

It is the same reason that communism derides religion for its emphasis on life and morality.

It is the same reason Americans are being subjected to government imposed limitations on energy and transportation, and coerced social change, altering and secularizing our society.

I have devoted my life to freedom of the press, freedom to publish, freedom to speak out, and to urge participation in the life of the greatest nation on Earth, but some books like “Our House Is Round” are the worst kind of mental pollution.

Envionmentalism, like all tyrannies, begins by indoctrinating children.

Editor’s Note: In 1974 Alan Caruba was a founding member of the National Book Critics Circle.

‘Fakegate’: Climate Change Fanatics Wage War on Dissenters

Why would Dr. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, a MacArthur Foundation Fellow, and chairman of an American Geophysical Union task force on “scientific ethics and integrity,” break the law to engage in a smear campaign against a small think-tank called The Heartland Institute that resulted in “Fakegate”?

As Alan Caruba related in the opening paragraph of his article published on Tuesday, April 3rd, titled “Fatetgate: The War on Science,” “[g]enerations of Americans have been raised to venerate science and those who have enhanced and extended our lives through its application. The rise of environmentalism, however, has generated a war on science, first by distorting it, and then by propagandizing the ‘findings’, studies’ and resulting claims based on them.”

The Heartland Institute, as a leading voice, led the effort to debunk the hoax through its sponsorship of six international conferences featuring scientists and others who presented papers demonstrating “that 0.038 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere had little or no “greenhouse” effect on the Earth’s climate or weather events.”

Heartland’s six International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCC) attracted scientists worldwide, who employed science rather than pseudo-science in their presentations. Among these scientists were such notables as Lord Monckton, special adviser to former Margaret Thatcher, and former Czech President Vaclav Klaus. Monckton and Klaus were featured guests at Heartland’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change in May of 2010.

An economist by training, Klaus made the following statement in 2011:

I’m convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature. That is the issue of a new ideology or a new religion. A religion or climate change or a religion of global warming. This is a religion which tell us that the people are responsible for the current, very small increase in temperatures. And they should be punished.

In light of Heartland’s worldwide recognition as a global warming/climate change skeptic of merit, it was only a matter of time before rage would ensue among climate alarmists to single out Heartland for discrediting and destruction.

So it was, on January 27 of this year, that Peter Gleick stole the identity of a member of Heartland’s board of directors and then used that identity to steal corporate documents describing Heartland’s budget, fundraising plans, and more. When those documents failed to produce a “smoking gun” — for example, they showed that Heartland received only small amounts of funding from the Koch brothers and from fossil fuel companies — Gleick or an ally forged a memo alleging to describe Heartland’s “Global Warning Strategy.”

On February 14, Gleick sent the stolen and forged documents to fifteen allies in the environmental movement and mainstream media, resulting in a wave of criticism of Heartland’s supposed plans to “infiltrate schools” and “undermine” climate science. Gleick confessed to stealing the documents on February 20, but media coverage of the event focused overwhelmingly on the false claims in the fake memo rather than on Gleick’s criminal actions.

Gleick’s allies immediately used the forged memo and stolen documents to target Heartland’s donors and the scientists who have helped write its publications.

A group calling itself “Forecast the Facts” challenged the chairman and CEO of General Motors to defend the company’s foundation’s support of an organization that opposes the teaching of science in public schools.

On Friday, March 30, General Motors spokesman David Barthmuss succumbed to what amounted to bullying, confirming that the company’s foundation will no longer donate to The Heartland Institute.

Regarding the loss of General Motors as a source of funding, Heartland CEO Joseph Bast had this to say: “The General Motors Foundation has been a supporter of the Heartland Institute for some 20 years. We regret the loss of their support, particularly since it was prompted by false claims contained in a fake memo circulated by disgraced climate scientist Peter Gleick.”

Bast subsequently told me: “The Left has attacked our donors before, but never had a list, and never had a fake memo to use that made it sound like we were truly evil and deliberately misleading people about our program. That’s what Fakegate provided…and the wacky Left let loose the hounds at “Forecast the Facts.”

In the eyes of those who are global warming skeptics, Peter Gleick might be labeled as an uncouth and evil person, but not according to Paul Joseph Watson, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies. In Professor Watson’s mind, Peter Gleick is the hero, while those having doubts about anthropogenic climate change are sick and in need of treatment.

Even if evil is in the eyes of the beholder, destructive policies spawned by global alarmists and environmental extremists, and from state and federal government entities, etc., cannot be permitted to stand unchallenged. In Heartland’s case, there was nothing remotely scandalous in its behavior.

In an effort to move forward in a positive way from Fakegate, Bast announced on Monday, April 2, that the seventh International Conference on Climate Change will be held in Chicago on May 21-23 to demonstrate, among other reasons, that the global warming skeptics movement has not lost any momentum due to the Fakegate scandal.

(See here for the author’s account of The Heartland Institute’s 2010 Fourth International Climate Change Conference held in Chicago, as published at the American Thinker on May 22, 2010.)

Read more