We have been seeing a few comments and articles online referring to the theory that global warming and climate change caused by emission of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide content as being one of the greatest political lies ever. According to one commentator:

“Doom and gloom. Let’s hear it for computer projections based on assumptions and surmises. Don’t let the truth stand in the way of a good story; and let’s all queue up for grants from assorted governments and government bodies, to keep us wealthy in our old age. Junk science to support junk scientists (though most of them in the IPCC are not even scientists). Junk science to assist the government in stealing even more taxes from us.

Check out the URL given by Scott in #4.”

Dry Climate 16×12 Fine Art Print Buy From Art.com

There are apparently a lot of prominent scientists who are of the opinion that the complete theory of climate change due to man’s activities on earth is a deliberate political move initiated by the UN and promoted by the media to an amazing tomfoolery and swindle of the common man.

One very interesting British documentary film illustrating the opposing views can be accessed at Google videos, here is the link: link

According to Conspiracy Archive, the term ‘Sustainable Development’ is in fact a global agenda structured on population control and further, that this a movement of vital proportion, ignored by the major media, kept off-limits from the general public, and has been on the United Nations (UN) drawing board for well over ten years. To quote:

“This movement would nullify our Constitutional structure with its freedoms and prerogatives enshrined in the Bill of Rights, including our unhampered right to religious freedom. It masquerades behind the facade of “sustainable development.”

In December 1983, Javier Perez de Cuellar, UN Secretary-General, asked Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Norway, to chair a World Commission on Environment and Development (UNCED) focusing on “long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond.” Mrs. Brundtland had previously been Prime Minister of Norway and had served on other UN Commissions - the Brandt Commission on North-South Issues and the Palme Commission on security and disarmament. Now she was asked “to help formulate a third and compelling call for political action” on environment and development.”

Here, says Conspiracy Archive, a one-world pattern begins to emerge:

the Brandt Commission bore the title “Program for Survival and Common Crisis”; the Palme Commission “Common Security”; and the Brundtland Commission, “Common Future”3 There is also a political cord common to the chairmen: Willy Brandt, former Prime Minister of Germany, was until his death president of the Socialist International. Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden, was a socialist leader and Chairman of the Social Democratic Party who was assassinated in Stockholm. Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway was also a “member of the Socialist International.” These chairmen shared the bond of socialism, a bond at variance with both the U.S. Constitution and the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The Resolution adopted at the UN General Assembly in 1983 directed the chair and vice-chair of the new UNCED to “jointly appoint the remaining members of the Commission, half of whom were to be selected from the developing world.”4 Members of the Brundtland Commission came from 21 “very different nations” and included Jim McNeill and Maurice Strong from Canada and the American, William D. Ruckelshaus, the first head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ERA). He is also a member of the Business Council for Sustainable Development launched in 1990 by Maurice Strong. The Business Council called for “new forms of cooperation between government, business and society to achieve sustainable development.”

What Is Meant By Sustainable Development?

The Brundtland Commission describes Sustainable Development as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It is further defined: “. . . Sustainable Development can only be pursued if demographic developments are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem.” And again, . . . “at a minimum Sustainable Development must not endanger the natural systems that support life on Earth - the waters, the soils, and the living beings” The pattern that begins to surface here becomes more pronounced in the body of the Commission’s report which was presented to the UN General Assembly in 1987.

The thrust of the “unanimous report” after three years of hearings held on five continents appears in the Chairman’s Foreword in comments such as “the rights of people to adequate food, sound housing, safe water, to access to means of choosing the size of their families” (xi); “. . . survival issues relating to uneven development, poverty and population growth” (xii); “the need for ‘major changes’ . . . in attitudes and in the way our societies are organized” (xiii).

Following the Chairman’s Foreword, an “Overview By The Commission Members” becomes more specific: “. . . Sustainable Development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process of change. . . . We do not pretend that the process is easy or straightforward. Painful choices have to be made. Thus in the final analysis, sustainable development must rest on political will.” “Governments that need to do so should develop long-term multifaceted population policies and a campaign to pursue broad demographic goals to strengthen social, cultural and economic motivations for family planning, and to provide to all who want them the education, contraceptives and services required.” Dispersed throughout the 400 pages of Our Common Future are so many references to population: “Population and Human Resources,” “The Population Perspective,” “Managing Population Growth,” as to suggest a pre-conceived agenda. At the conclusion of its final meeting held in Tokyo in 1987, the Commission recommended “principles to guide their policy actions” including Principle #4 to “Ensure a Sustainable Level of Population” “Population policies should be formulated and integrated with other economic and social development programmes. . . . Increased access to family planning services is itself a form of social development that allows couples, and women in particular, the right to self-determination.”

The reader should continue to read the rest of Conspiracy Archive’s notes, LINK HERE. Honestly, either I am blind but I cannot see anything wrong with population control and we all knew that this was on the drawing borad since some 20 years if I am not mistaken.

One reader at ‘The Scotsman’ online news commented:

“I see Martin Livermore, Director of “The Scientific Alliance”, described as “a group of scientists and non-scientists” is quoted in the above article pouring doubt onto climate models.

This is what George Marshall (www.climatedenial.org) says about Martin Livermore, in his review of the Channel 4 Climate Swindle programme in March:

“There was only one scientific advisor on the [Channel 4 Climate Swindle] programme, Martin Livermore, whose sole scientific qualification is that he is the Director of a web-based think tank, The Scientific Alliance. The Alliance was set up by in 2001 by Robert Durward, the fiercely anti-green director of the British Aggregates Association, and Foresight Communications, a Westminster public relations and lobbying company, to “counter scare-mongering by the so-called green lobby”.

The Scientific Alliance has no affiliation with any recognised scientific body but, like most of the contributors to the programme, it does have very strong links with the US public relations and lobbying organizations that have been so effective in setting the Bush agenda on climate change.”