Jump to content

Climate and Capitalism

John Dolva

Recommended Posts

Powerful 'green shopping' critique falls short on solutions

Sunday, March 4, 2012 By Ian Angus


Kendra Pierre-Louis's new book, Green Washed, is a powerful critique of 'the comforting message that we can shop ourselves out of our current environmental mess'. Green Washed: Why We Can’t Buy Our Way to a Green Planet

Kendra Pierre-Louis

IG Publishing, 216 pages

Radical German poet Hans Magnus Enzenberger once compared mainstream environmentalism to a Sunday sermon that terrifies parishioners with dire warnings of eternal damnation, but concludes weakly by promising salvation to any sinner who performs a simple act of penance.

“The horror of the predicted catastrophe,” he wrote, “contrasts sharply with the mildness of the admonition with which we are allowed to escape.”

Countless green books fit that description. Again and again, intense warnings of imminent disaster are followed by lists of Easy Things You Can Do to Save the Earth.

Buy fluorescent light bulbs. Turn down the thermostat and buy a warm sweater. Ride a bicycle to work. Carry groceries in reusable tote bags. Don’t buy bottled water.

Kendra Pierre-Louis is an editor of Justmeans.com, a website that calls itself “the world's leading source of information and connections for the sustainable business industry”. So we might expect her to favour such proposals, but that’s not the case.

Her new book Green Washed is a powerful critique of “the comforting message that we can shop ourselves out of our current environmental mess”.

She writes: “Too many businesses and environmental groups have led us to believe that if we buy the correct collection of products, we can save the planet.

“While these assurances have done much to assuage our collective guilt, and even more to create a generation of smug eco-shoppers, it has done next to nothing to fundamentally change the environmental landscape, while in many cases actively contributing to environmental degradation and misinformation.”

But while it rejects the Easy Things You Can Do approach, Green Washed still suffers from the Sunday sermon problem. Pierre-Louis’critique of green consumerism is powerful and effective, but the alternative she offers is no more credible than a green shopping list.

In six chapters on consumer products and three on energy alternatives, Pierre-Louis documents the environmental damage caused by supposedly green products.

Organic food is often grown by malnourished farm workers. Biodiesel comes from tree farms that accelerate biodiversity loss. It takes a whopping 400 gallons of water to produce the fabric for one natural cotton T-shirt.

Even if your hybrid car used no gasoline at all, it would still require roads. Pierre-Louis writes: “The construction of one single mile, of one single lane, of a highway’s smooth, perfectly paved road surface consumes between 7000 and, 12,000 tons of raw materials — the same amount used by 600 to 1000 US households annually.

"In the process, that same tiny mile emits some 500 to 1200 tons of carbon dioxide.”

Green Washed’s greatest strength is its clear and concise presentation of such data.

Pierre-Louis hasn’t just done her research, she has organised and presented it very well, making a convincing case that green shopping cannot save the planet: that alone makes it a valuable resource for green activists.

In her view, what’s necessary is not just different consumption, but less consumption. “The easiest thing to do, the greenest thing, is to simply use less of whatever we are using.”

Countless products shouldn’t be made at all; others should be made to last.

"If we stop wasting 40% of all food that’s grown, agriculture will use less land and water. Reliable and cost-effective public transit will reduce the need for cars, fuel and highways.

"Making clothing that lasts will keep millions of tons of textile waste out of municipal landfills."

In refreshing contrast to most books on consumerism, Green Washed pins the blame for excess consumption on our economic system, not on individual psychology.

“If we were to make reducing our consumption to a level that was both materially satisfying and ecologically sustainable our central focus, our entire global economic system would collapse.

"This isn’t a hyperbole. Our economic system is based on the need for perpetual growth; we either grow our economy or it dies, taking us along with it.”

Unfortunately, Pierre-Louis’ analysis of causes stops with criticism of growth. She doesn’t ask why the global economic system is so irrational.

Why is the only alternative to one polluting product so often another that pollutes as badly or worse?

Many brilliant writers have criticised growth, and offered detailed proposals for steady-state economies — why have they been ignored by those in power?

What about our existing social and economic order makes growth so essential and environmental destruction so universal?

Because it doesn’t pursue those questions, Green Washed proposes band aid solutions when major surgery is needed. Having firmly rejected individual green shopping, the alternative Pierre-Louis offers amounts to green shopping in groups.

She writes: “It’s about going to your neighborhood bars and getting them to band together to refuse to stock any beer sold by a publicly traded company, or getting your local bakeries to start using sustainably sourced flour, or getting people in your communities to stop frequenting the Wal-Marts and big box retailers and to work together to localize the economy.”

Buying local may be good in its own right, but it’s impossible to take seriously her claim that such actions amount to “dropping out of the normal economic system”.

Even less believable is her view that local shopping will form the basis of a “shadow, or parallel economy” that will “tread lightly on the earth” and “cast a light into the dark corners of the normal economy.”

The handful of real world examples she cites are cooperatives, a type of economic institution that has co-existed with destructive capitalism in various forms for at least two centuries.

As many past experiences have shown, the “normal economy” can easily tolerate such alternatives, so long as they don’t significantly challenge its constant drive for new sources of raw materials, cheap labor and profit.

In rare cases when an alternative does grow beyond acceptable limits, the powers that be have more than enough power to absorb or crush it.

Pierre-Louis admits that “the people currently in power … have a vested interest in keeping things more or less the same”. But she offers no guidance for how we are to deal with their resistance to change.

Projects that improve the sustainability and resilience of local communities are important, but they are no substitute for political and social action against the global forces that are destroying our world.

Unless we stop and reverse those forces, Pierre-Louis’s shadow economies will be small green islands in an ocean of environmental destruction — and water levels will continue rising.

[ian Angus is editor of Climate and Capitalism. He is co-author, with Green Left Weekly co-editor Simon Butler, of Too Many People? Population, Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Climate catastrophe on our door step

Saturday, March 17, 2012 By Peter BoyleThe latest State of the Climate report by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO was launched at a weather monitoring station on remote Cape Grim in Tasmania. The location was an apt choice for a report that has very bad news about Australia's continuing failure to respond adequately to the climate change crisis.

The report says each decade since the 1950s has been warmer. Annual-average daily mean temperatures have increased 0.9% since 1910 and annual-average overnight minimum temperatures have warmed by more than 1.1% since 1910.

The recent two years of wetter weather, due to the La Nina effect, do not mean this long-term warming trend has ended. The report said last year “was the world’s 11th warmest year and the warmest year on record during a La Nina event”.

The world’s 13 warmest years on record have all been in the past 15 years.

La Nina is related to warmer-than-average ocean temperatures around Australia and sea-surface temperatures around Australia have risen faster than the global average, the report said.

The report projected an average temperature rise in Australia of 1-5ーC by 2070, long-term drying over southern and eastern Australia and more extreme weather such as floods, droughts and cyclones.

CSIRO research says an average temperature rise of just 1-2ーC would bleach 58-81% of the Great Barrier Reef each year. Core habitat for vertebrates in the northern tropics would drop 90%.

Three to four degrees would kill 95% of Great Barrier Reef species, shrink 20-85% of total snow-covered area in the Australian Alps and ruin 30–70% of core habitat for Victoria and highland tropical vertebrate species.


If average temperatures rise above 5°C, Australia will lose 90–100% of core habitat for most vertebrates.

The State of the Climate report said the global average sea level last year was 210mm above 1880 levels and rose faster between 1993 and 2011 than during the entire 20th century.

The report said greenhouse gases continue to rise exponentially. Carbon dioxide has reached 390 parts per million in the atmosphere.

It is almost too late to take the radical action needed to avert catastrophic climate change. And if the voices of reason don’t prevail over powerful vested interests blocking such action, then we could pass that point soon.

Green Left Weekly needs your urgent help to step up the fight against these powerful vested interests. Our objective is to raise $250,000 for our Fighting Fund by the end of thes year.

You can donate online today to the Green Left Fighting Fund. Direct deposits can be made to Greenleft, Commonwealth Bank, BSB 062-006, Account No. 00901992.

Otherwise, you can send a cheque or money order to PO Box 515, Broadway NSW 2007 or donate on the toll-free line at 1800 634 206 (within Australia).

From GLW issue 915


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...


Severin Carrell

Nasa scientist: climate change is a moral issue on a par with slavery

Prof Jim Hansen to use lecture at Edinburgh International Science Festival to call for worldwide tax on all carbon emissions

  • Prof-Jim-Hansen-008.jpg
    Prof Jim Hansen: 'We’re handing future generations a climate system which is potentially out of their control'.
    Photograph: Melanie Patterson/AP
    Averting the worst consequences of human-induced
climate change is a "great moral issue" on a par with slavery, according to the leading Nasa climate scientist Prof Jim Hansen.
He argues that storing up expensive and destructive consequences for society in future is an "injustice of one generation to others".
Hansen, who will next Tuesday be awarded the prestigious Edinburgh Medal for his contribution to science, will also in his acceptance speech call for a worldwide tax on all carbon emissions.
In his lecture, Hansen will argue that the challenge facing future generations from climate change is so urgent that a flat-rate global tax is needed to force immediate cuts in fossil fuel use. Ahead of receiving the award – which has previously been given to Sir David Attenborough, the ecologist James Lovelock, and the economist Amartya Sen – Hansen told the Guardian that the latest climate models had shown the planet was on the brink of an emergency. He said humanity faces repeated natural disasters from extreme weather events which would affect large areas of the planet.
"The situation we're creating for young people and future generations is that we're handing them a climate system which is potentially out of their control," he said. "We're in an emergency: you can see what's on the horizon over the next few decades with the effects it will have on ecosystems, sea level and species extinction."
Now 70, Hansen is regarded as one of the most influential figures in climate science; the creator of one of the first global climate models, his pioneering role in warning about global warming is frequently cited by climate campaigners such as former US vice president Al Gore and in earlier science prizes, including the $1m Dan David prize. He has been arrested more than once for his role in protests against coal energy.
Hansen will argue in his lecture that current generations have an over-riding moral duty to their children and grandchildren to take immediate action. Describing this as an issue of inter-generational justice on a par with ending slavery, Hansen said: "Our parents didn't know that they were causing a problem for future generations but we can only pretend we don't know because the science is now crystal clear.
"We understand the carbon cycle: the CO2 we put in the air will stay in surface reservoirs and won't go back into the solid earth for millennia. What the Earth's history tells us is that there's a limit on how much we can put in the air without guaranteeing disastrous consequences for future generations. We cannot pretend that we did not know."
Hansen said his proposal for a global carbon tax was based on the latest analysis of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and their impact on global temperatures and weather patterns. He has co-authored a scientific paper with 17 other experts, including climate scientists, biologists and economists, which calls for an immediate 6% annual cut in CO2 emissions, and a substantial growth in global forest cover, to avoid catastrophic climate change by the end of the century.
The paper, which has passed peer review and is in the final stages of publication by the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, argues that a global levy on fossil fuels is the strongest tool for forcing energy firms and consumers to switch quickly to zero carbon and green energy sources. In larger countries, that would include nuclear power.
Under this proposal, the carbon levy would increase year on year, with the tax income paid directly back to the public as a dividend, shared equally, rather than put into government coffers. Because the tax would greatly increase the cost of fossil fuel energy, consumers relying on green or low carbon sources of power would benefit the most as this dividend would come on top of cheaper fuel bills. It would promote a dramatic increase in the investment and development of low-carbon energy sources and technologies.
The very rich and most profligate energy users, people with several homes, or private jets and fuel-hungry cars, would also be forced into dramatically changing their energy use. In the new paper, Hansen, director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and his colleagues warn that failing to cut CO2 emissions by 6% now will mean that by 2022, the annual cuts would need to reach a more drastic level of 15% a year.
Had similar action been taken in 2005, when the Kyoto protocol on climate change came into force, the CO2 emission reductions would have been at a more manageable 3% a year. The target was to return CO2 levels in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, down from its current level of 392ppm. The paper, the "Scientific case for avoiding dangerous climate change to protect young people and nature", also argues that the challenge is growing because of the accelerating rush to find new, harder–to-reach sources of oil, gas and coal in the deep ocean, the Arctic and from shale gas reserves.
Hansen said current attempts to limit carbon emissions, particularly the European Union's emissions trading mechanism introduced under the Kyoto protocol which restricts how much CO2 an industry can emit before it has to pay a fee for higher emissions, were "completely ineffectual". Under the global carbon tax proposal, the mechanisms for controlling fossil fuel use would be taken out of the hands of individual states influenced by energy companies, and politicians anxious about winning elections.
"It can't be fixed by individual specific changes; it has to be an across-the-board rising fee on carbon emissions," said Hansen. "We can't simply say that there's a climate problem, and leave it to the politicians. They're so clearly under the influence of the fossil fuel industry that they're coming up with cockamamie solutions which aren't solutions. That is the bottom line."
Friday 6 April 2012 11.00 BST

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no climate crisis...at least not a "man made" climate crisis. Anthropogenic global warming has been mostly discounted as a result of the poor science that went into its inception. Even if it turns out to be true, still it has not been demonstrated reliably in the models and methods put forth by the climate scientists who made it a practice to bias there own results in favor of a predetermined agenda.


Why Climategate is so Distressing to Scientists

John P. Costella

B.E.(Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed.

26 Cassinia Avenue, Ashwood, Victoria 3147, Australia

john.costella@gmail.com; assassinationscience.com/johncostella (December 10, 2009)

The most difficult thing for a scientist in the era of Climategate is trying to explain to family and friends why it is so distressing to scientists. Most people don’t know how science really works: there are no popular television shows, movies, or books that really depict the everyday lives of real scientists; it just isn’t exciting enough. I’m not talking here about the major discoveries of science—which are well-described in documentaries, popular science series, and magazines—but rather how the process of science (often called the “scientific method”) actually works.

The best analogy that I have been able to come up with, in recent weeks, is the criminal justice system—which is (rightly or wrongly) abundantly depicted in the popular media. Everyone knows what happens if police obtain evidence by illegal means: the evidence is ruled inadmissible; and, if a case rests on that tainted evidence, it is thrown out of court. The justice system is not saying that the accused is necessarily innocent; rather, that determining the truth is impossible if evidence is not protected from tampering or fabrication.

The same is true in science: scientists assume that the rules of the scientific method have been followed, at least in any discipline that publishes its results for public consumption. It is that trust in the process that allows me, for example, to believe that the human genome has been mapped—despite my knowing nothing about that field of science at all. That same trust has allowed scientists at large to similarly believe in the results of climate science. Until now.

So what are the “rules” of the scientific method? Actually, they are not all that different from those of the justice system. Just as it is a fundamental right of every affected party to be heard and fairly considered by the court, it is of crucial importance to science that all points of view be given a chance to be heard, and fairly debated. But, of course, it would be impossible to allow an “open slather” type of arrangement, like discussion forums on the Internet; so how do we admit all points of view, without descending into anarchy?

This question touches on something of a dark secret within science—one which most scientists, through the need for self-preservation, are scared to admit: most disciplines of science are, to a greater or lesser extent, controlled by fashions, biases, and dogma. Why is this so? Because the mechanism by which scientific debate has been “regulated” to avoid anarchy—at least since the second half of the twentieth century—has been the “peer review” process. The career of any professional scientist lives or dies on their success in achieving publication of their papers in “peer-reviewed” journals. So what, exactly, does “peer-reviewed” mean? Simply that other professional scientists in that discipline must agree that the paper is worthy of publication. And what is the criterion that determines who these “professional scientists” should be? Their success in achieving publication of their papers in peer-reviewed journals! Catch-22.

It may seem, on the surface, that this circular process is fundamentally flawed; but, borrowing the words of Winston Churchill, it is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. Science is not, of course, alone in this respect; for example, in the justice system, judges are generally selected from the ranks of lawyers. So what is it that allows this form of system to work, despite its evident circularity?

The justice system again provides a clue: judges are not the ones who ultimately decide what occurs in a courtroom: they simply implement the laws passed or imposed by the government—and politicians are not, in general, selected solely from the ranks of the legal profession. This is the ultimate “reality check” that prevents the legal system from spiraling into navel-gazing irrelevance.

Equivalent “escape valves” for science are not as explicitly obvious, but they exist nonetheless.

Firstly, a scientific discipline can maintain a “closed shop” mentality for a while, but eventually the institutions and funding agencies that provide the lifeblood of their work— the money that pays their wages and funds their research—will begin to question the relevance and usefulness of the discipline, particularly in relation to other disciplines that are competing for the same funds. This will generally be seen by the affected scientists as “political interference”, but it is a reflection of their descent into arrogance and delusions of self-importance for them to believe that only they themselves are worthy of judging their own merits.

Secondly, scientists who are capable and worthy, but unfairly “locked out” of a given discipline, will generally migrate to other disciplines in which the scientific process is working as it should. Dysfunctional disciplines will, in time, atrophy, in favor of those that are healthy and dynamic.

The Climategate emails show that these self-regulating mechanisms simply failed to work in the case of climate science—perhaps because “climate science” is itself an aggregation of many different and disparate scientific disciplines. Those component disciplines are extremely challenging. For example, it would be wonderful if NASA were able to invent a time machine, and go back over the past hundred thousand years and set up temperature and carbon dioxide measurement probes across the breadth of the globe. Unfortunately, we don’t have this. Instead, we need to infer these measurements, by counting tree rings, or digging up tubes of ice. The science of each of these disciplines is well-defined and rigorous, and there are many good scientists working in these fields. But the real difficulty is the “stitching together” of all of these results, in a way that allows answers to the fundamental questions: How much effect has mankind had on the temperature of the planet? And how much difference would it make if we did things differently?

It is at this “stitching together” layer of science—one could call it a “meta-discipline”— that the principles of the scientific method have broken down. Reading through the Climategate emails, one can see members of that community—usually those with slightly different experience and wisdom than the power-brokers—questioning (as they should) this “stitching together” process, particularly with regard to the extremely subtle mathematical methods that need to be used to try to extract answers. Now, these mathematical and statistical methods are completely within my own domain of expertise; and I can testify that the criticisms are sensible, carefully thought-out, and completely valid; these are good scientists, asking the right questions.

So what reception do they get? Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge— thanking them for their experience (no one knows everything about everything) and using that knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule, threaten, and ultimately black-ball those who dare to question the methods that they—the power-brokers, the leaders—have used. And do not be confused: I am here talking about those scientists within their own camps, not the “skeptics” which they dismiss out of hand.

This is not “climate science”, it is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology.

It is this betrayal of the principles of science—in what is arguably the most important public application of science in our lifetime—that most distresses scientists.



Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Costello, the climate skeptic - bah!. (he has really lost his marbles this time.) Predetermined agenda is spot on.

And you, yeah - what if it is true?m It's the only way it can turn out to be so. What then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


My main objection to this type of reasoning is simple: Scientists should never attempt to generate research funds by swaying public opinion through unsubstantiated alarmist rhetoric. If the claims can be substantiated then there should have been no need for these climate scientists to silence the skeptics within their own ranks.

Let me say it a different way:

Not only did these climate scientists dismiss the opposing conclusions of scientists who were outside of their inner group, they even vilified scientists within their own community whose research seriously challenged the validity of the claims being made!

That is huge.

The scientists (even within their own group) who rejected the methodology being employed to prove that global warming was man-made were SILENCED and even worse, their opposing conclusions, trivialized.


So what reception do they get? Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge— thanking them for their experience (no one knows everything about everything) and using that knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule, threaten, and ultimately black-ball those who dare to question the methods that they—the power-brokers, the leaders—have used. And do not be confused: I am here talking about those scientists within their own camps, not the “skeptics” which they dismiss out of hand.

This is not “climate science”, it is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology.

It is this betrayal of the principles of science—in what is arguably the most important public application of science in our lifetime—that most distresses scientists.

So, John, at this stage we do not know what caused the increase in temperature last decade. However, it is a fair bet that it had MUCH more to do with solar activity than anything else. Have you noticed how silent Al Gore has been since all of this started? He didn't even attend the Copenhagen Summit.

Perhaps if he hides his eyes and crawls into a tight ball in the middle of the living room--like the small child, playing hide and seek, who figures if "he can't see them then they can't see him" -- perhaps Al Gore thinks this gaffe will just go away and his Nobel Prize will be intact...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Copenhagen summit was a scam.

The deniers are like the Doc's who authored reports inline with the tobacco companies.

I'll take the words of a NASA scientist over costello any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW: It is not that John is a denier or even a skeptic. Not at all. He simply is not persuaded yet. However, he is highly critical of their sloppy--if not deceptive--application of the scientific method, as well as their abuse of the peer review system.

I think that is the point. I am not saying that I know enough about climate science specifically to claim to know they are wrong. However, I may know enough about scientific method to recognize that the presence of fallacious arguments tends to yield less than legitimate conclusions. In other words, IF they just happen to be correct it surely is not due to their methodology. Until I see sound methodology I will not be persuaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, thank you, Greg. I can respect that.

I gotta post on fiat for a bit so I'll, or you can whenever you like of course, bring it to the fore again tomorrow.

edit add, fiat is in other forum, Gotta pull a few threads together as they significantly overlap.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, thank you, Greg. I can respect that.

I gotta post on fiat for a bit so I'll, or you can whenever you like of course, bring it to the fore again tomorrow.

edit add, fiat is in other forum, Gotta pull a few threads together as they significantly overlap.

Thank you, John. I think I'll go check out FIAT, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Posted for your consideration. Please choose to ignore the "melodramatic" rhetoric if and when it appears in the article below. Rather, choose to focus on fact-checking the data sets referenced as source material in the article. And then, if verified, decide for yourself what impact this information should have, if any, on your view of the validity of the current state of "climate change science."


Date: 11/12/2014

Imagine, for a moment, sitting at a prestigious steakhouse in Palm Beach, Florida, a hot spot for some of the most wealthy and famous — Donald Trump, Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey, James Patterson, Rush Limbaugh, and hundreds more.

And, imagine dining with a handful of men you’ve only read about. Some of them are worth millions, others published best-selling books, and some have held prominent positions at the White House.

In essence, you’re sitting at a five-person table of VIPs.

You’re about to take a bite of your New York strip when one of the men, a top U.S. intelligence agent, slams a 164-page document in the middle of the table.

This document, you soon find out, contains damning evidence that a network of politicians, corporations, and scientists have conspired together to promote the fear of “global warming” . . . despite evidence clearly stating no such “global warming” exists.

The motive: $22 billion per year.

To be clear . . . that’s $22 billion of taxpayers’ money . . . the amount that our government pays to stop the “global warming” epidemic.

That comes out to $41,856 every minute.

Or, to put it in perspective, that is twice as much as what our government spends on securing our borders.

Then, imagine this top U.S. intelligence agent turning to you, and asking for you to join him on a mission to out those involved in the “global warming” lie.

Doing so would cost a lot of money, a lot of time, and could cost you your reputation. But, pretending you never saw the document, and carrying on with your life, would allow the scandal to continue and actually put lives at risk.

So, imagine if you were at that table, and the scenario I just described happened to you.


My name is Tom Luongo. I am a former scientist with the University of Florida and currently run the Resolute Wealth Letterprogram.

My name is Tom Luongo, and I’ve recently had this exact experience.

In the following few pages, I am going to show you the alarming research in the document that was laid before me that night in Palm Beach.

I will tell you why this network of politicians, corporations, and scientists tried to hide this research . . . and how you can be part of a newly formed initiative with the aim of getting this research into the hands of every American.

This research proves, once and for all, that “global warming” is a sham . . . a sham perpetuated by a network of dirty government officials, greedy corporations, and bought-off “scientific” organizations.

How you respond will be up to you.

I can guarantee you one thing: After reading the next few pages, you will never look at government officials the same way . . . you will never trust what you hear in the media again . . . in fact, you will become skeptical of any and all authority figures going forward.

It’s unfortunate, but the betrayal you’re going to discover today runs very deep, and revealing the truthabout “global warming” comes with great risk.

As a scientist for over 20 years, I’ve always upheld the truth.

I’ve worked with the University of Florida to do some amazing things . . . I’ve helped make crop yields more productive for third world countries . . . I helped create an intermetallic coating for gun barrels that dropped maintenance requirements on firearms by half . . . and I’ve helped cure diseases.

I have seen a lot of research go across my desk. But none of it can compare to the 164-page document that landed in front of me that night in Palm Beach.

That’s why I’m going to lay the facts from this document before you today, and then I’m going to ask that you join me, and the man who composed this document, on our mission to defund the “global warming” sham . . .

All it will take is a click of your mouse.

With one click, you’re going to put more momentum behind what I hope to be the largest effort . . . ever . . . to annihilate the “global warming” lie and defund the government’s multibillion-dollar spending frenzy to keep it alive.

Now, before we begin, I ask that you excuse any “rough” elements in this letter. What I’m sharing with you today is so urgent that I’ve made a huge effort to get the research in this 164-page document available to you as quickly as possible . . .

With President Obama’s recent speech about getting tougher on “global warming” issues I think it’s critical that we don’t waste a minute in getting this information out.

The sooner we get this information into the hands of the public . . . your hands . . . the more informed voters will be when they cast their ballots.

First, you should know who put this document in my hands — a man whom Al Gore is personally attacking . . .


Link to comment
Share on other sites


John Casey is a former White House space program advisor, consultant to NASA Headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is now one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts.

John is a former White House space program adviser, consultant to NASA headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is now one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts.

In short, John is the very definition of a government insider. He spent 35 years conducting classified research, examining confidential documents, and directing critical scientific programs.

For example: In 1986, when the space shuttle Challenger tragically exploded, killing seven crew members, John testified before Congress on the cause of the accident. After the testimony, Congress instructed NASA headquarters to bring John in to chair a special internal investigation into why these critical systems failed.

Now, keep that in mind for a moment: Capitol Hill and NASA trusted John’s detailed analytical approach and his engineering credentials so much they asked him to investigate the cause of one of our nation’s greatest tragedies.

After 35 years of serving his country, John quietly retired in Florida. He planned on living peacefully, spending time with his wife, children, and grandkids.

But on one April afternoon in 2007, John made an “unfortunate” discovery that changed everything.


When the space shuttle Challenger crashed in 1986, the U.S. government asked John Casey to investigate.

The discovery would ultimately lead him to abandon his plans for retirement in order to support a cause that was bigger than himself . . . that was bigger than anything he had done in his 35-year career.

In fact, this discovery would result in him becoming hated by all those who once heralded him as their friend and adviser.

After this outright rejection, John realized that despite his science not changing, despite the thousands of pages of irrefutable data, and despite millions of lives at risk . . . he was alone.

The responsibility of letting the world know about this discovery rested solely on his shoulders, and those who would listen to him.

Indeed, what he has to say goes contrary to everything you have been told about “climate change.”

I initially rejected what John had to tell me. But when he showed me what was in his 164-page document, I couldn’t argue with him.

Facts are facts.

What John discovered that fateful afternoon was . . .


You see, John found evidence — buried right in the government’s own environmental studies — that destroys their argument for “global warming.”

Using their own data, John has proven, once and for all, “global warming” is a sham. And perhaps the most expensive — and lethal — sham in American history.

A sham that our government spends $22 billion a year financing. Think about that: our government spends $22 billion a year financing “global warming” initiatives.

Again, that’s almost double what the government spends on securing our borders.

Or, to break it down to real numbers . . .


But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

John’s research also uncovered a different looming cataclysm that will ruin every nation that’s not prepared . . . a calamity that has been accelerating for the last 17 years . . . and brewing for over 200 years.

This impending catastrophe is as natural as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. And just as unstoppable.

I’m talking about a tectonic shift in the world’s economies that will . . .

  • Send oil to over $300 a barrel
  • Cause food prices to triple and in some places make food completely unavailable
  • Lead to violence erupting in the streets of your suburban neighborhood
  • Cause governments to topple, nations to descend into chaos, and international wars to break out.

In the 164-page document John handed me, he went to great lengths to explain exactly how serious this crisis will be. It’s going to be worsened by the fact our politicians are bullheadedly ignoring it.

The result will be every American being blindsided . . . unable to see it coming because of Al Gore and his cronies preaching false dogma.

As I said before, I didn’t believe it either until I saw the evidence in John’s dossier. And even then, it took me hours of talking to John afterward to digest it.

John’s research has now been corroborated by 17 independent scientific individuals and organizations. These are some of the top scientific minds in the field of climate science . . . in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


When John retired, he had many allies and supporters in the government.

However, when he turned that same analytical approach Washington loved so much on Washington itself . . .

He became, in essence, their “public enemy No. 1.”

Let me explain.

As mentioned, in April of 2007, already into a comfortable retirement, John began examining some solar and environmental physics research (these are his hobbies).

The “unfortunate” discovery he made would make any honest American sick to the stomach. John immediately took the evidence and called his colleagues and fellow government insiders to alert them to the situation.

He even sent notices to the White House warning them of the crisis.

The response?


Silence, and then rejection.

And every year since, John has continued to notify every state governor, every U.S. senator, the House of Representatives, state attorneys general, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Obama’s Science Adviser Dr. John Holdren, and Dr. Jane Lubchenco, then head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

You see, all of John’s “friends” suddenly “forgot” his name and number when he revealed the inconvenient truth about Uncle Sam’s most expensive sacred cow . . . and showed them solid, scientifically sound research that obliterates the idea of “global warming.”



You’ve heard how the earth is rapidly heating up . . . causing drought and mayhem.

For sure, the media jumps on the “global warming” story every time there is a heat wave and each time a hurricane hits the East Coast.

But how much has the world really warmed?

Well, according to NASA’s own data, the world has warmed .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).

I think you would agree that a .36 degree increase in temperature over the last 35 years is hardly anything to get in a panic about.

Granted, that does mean the world is warmer, right?

The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING ever since!


The reality is this: The world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998.

Just take a look at this chart from Remote Sensing Systems, which provides data to NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations.


If you’re like me, this makes a lot of sense.

We’ve had cooler summers and longer winters.

Again, take one more look at the chart above — global warming reversed its rise in 1998. In the dossier John handed me, he explains exactly why this happened . . . and what’s going to happen next.

But for now, just keep this fact in your back pocket: the case for “global warming” is dead in its tracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


“Global warming” proponents have said for a long time we’d see a heating of the oceans.

This proposition is necessary, since it means all those big chunks of ice are supposed to melt, killing off polar bears and causing states like Florida to get swallowed up by water.

In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his “global warming” initiative (and quietly pocketing millions of dollars), Al Gore made a striking prediction . . .

“The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely
gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.


The arctic ice caps have increased in size by 43% to 63%.

It is seven years later, and recent satellite images show that not only have the icecaps not melted . . . but they’ve expanded in size by 43% to 63%.

Here’s what a Globe and Mail article had to say: “An area twice the size of Alaska — America's biggest state — was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice.”

I think we know who’s using actual science, and who’s fear-mongering their way to wealth and fame.

Since 2002, the ocean temperatures have fluctuated less than 1 degree Fahrenheit. There is no warming.

Again, there is nothing to get hysterical about here.


You’ve heard for years how climate change has been caused by . . . well, you!

Al Gore and his liberal friends have stood onstage blaming you and your “gas-guzzling” car, standard four‑bedroom house, and the factory downtown.


Al Gore spreads “Global Warming” propaganda for his own profit.

Shame on you, right?

Of course, the hypocrisy of the claim is that Al Gore himself racks up annual electric and gas bills of $30,000, more than 20 times the national average.

Now, while I am all for keeping the environment clean (I recycle, drive a fuel-efficient car, and reuse materials), humans have not caused “global warming” . . . nothing can be further from the truth.

Indeed, “global warming” alarmists and their allies in the liberal media are famous for saying that scientists agree that man has caused “global warming.”

President Obama even tweeted on May 16, 2014, “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


NOTE: I’ve shared a quick snapshot of the facts in John’s controversial 164-page document. Truth be told, John has 33 scientifically reviewed reasons that “global warming” is more than just a farce . . . it’s the product of bad, botched science. In John’s own words, the research in this document is “something you have not been allowed to hear for almost 20 years.” That is, the truth about our climate, the politicians manipulating the science, and the real key that controls our planet’s temperature — the sun.

As The Wall Street Journal reported, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.”

When further review was done, it was discovered that a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change.

In outrage, a petition was signed by more than 31,000 scientists that states “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."

Indeed, even a founding father of the man-made “global warming” theory — Claude Allegre — recently came out and renounced his position by admitting, “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”


The reality is simply this: The climate changes over time.

When Alexander the Great was conquering Persia, climate change was a big factor. And we all learned in high school that the “little ice age” that rocked Europe killed hundreds of thousands of people from the 1600s through the 1800s. Additionally, we know about the heat wave and drought that wiped out much of America during the 1930s. Thousands of people were dislocated in search of survival.

Were those events caused by man-made “global warming”?

Of course not.

And, the reality is, most scientists who advocate “global warming” today know mankind has nothing to do with climate change.

Remember: Temperatures have only risen .36 degrees since 1979 . . . and the bulk of that happened during the 1990s! We haven’t seen any warming for the last 17 years . . . in fact we have seen a drop in temperatures.


Well, think about it.

Every year, the temperatures rise and fall with spring, summer, fall, and winter. A year is simply a 365-day cycle.


The sun is 1.3 million times larger than the earth. When its temperature changes, our temperature changes.

Every day, the temperatures rise and fall with daytime and nighttime. A day is simply a 24-hour cycle.

These two cycles happen automatically. We can neither change them nor stop them any more than we can stop the Earth’s rotation. It’s impossible. The temperatures fluctuate based on these cycles.

So clearly, the Earth’s temperatures rise and fall based on its exposure to . . . the sun.

Well, here’s the breaking news. And you must pay close attention . . . because what I’m about to tell you has been deemed a “forbidden theme” in the scientific community.

Talking about it gets you a black mark at the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the World Meteorological Society.

You see, there are larger cycles of the sun . . . “solar cycles.”

This may not seem earthshattering, but solar cycles are — bar nonethe most devastating argument against man-made “global warming.”

Essentially, there are times when the sun gets hotter and times when it cools off as measured by “sunspots.” And John Casey found multiple solar cycles that determine the temperatures of the Earth.

The thing about these cycles is that they are predictable, and therefore it’s not difficult to see what is coming in the years ahead.

Indeed, if scientists were paying attention to these “solar cycles” years ago, they could have told you that the Earth would get warmer during the 1990s, and then it would cool . . . just like it has.

In fact, this climate cycle, along with several other cycles, has allowed John to make 11 accurate predictions about the Earth’s climate over the past few years, and it has allowed him to make a catastrophic prediction which I will share with you in a moment.

Ironically, as John released his data on these solar cycles, the ugly lie about man-made “global warming” started leaking out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...