by Jarret B. Wollstein

(no copyright that I am aware of)


INTRODUCTION (by Dr. Wilson)


              There is no theory more stupid than the idea that human beings are ruining the earth by driving their cars causing the earth to warm up one or two degrees over hundreds of years.

              Use your head, readers.  Almost half of our planet is frozen 6 months of the year and is a desolate wasteland, as a result.  If the earth warms up a little, millions of people, animals and plants will benefit.  It would be absolutely wonderful!

If we could change this, we should all be driving our cars twice as much.  However, according to NASA date, other planets in our solar system are also warming up a bit, and as far as I know, they don’t drive cars there.  So, most likely, we cannot warm up the earth by driving our cars, flying in airplanes or eating beef.

              In truth, the control of the climate is much more complex.  It is controlled by advanced beings who move the earth a tiny bit closer to the sun or further away from the sun if the plants and creatures on the planet need the planet warmer or colder.   That is how climate is regulated on earth.

The climate change crowd is made up of autocrats and dictators looking for a way to control people and scare them.  They also want to distract you from the real environmental problems of our planet, which is mainly pollution with toxic metals,  toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation from nuclear power plants.  Please wake up!


Update: A good book was published in 2016 that refutes the idea that scientists agree on climate change.  They do not agree!  There is no consensus.  The book is Why Scientists Disagree On Global Warming by Craig Idso, Robert Carter and S. Fred Singer.



According to militant proponents of global warming theory, the earth is on the verge of a runaway greenhouse effect that will destroy the human race and indeed most life on the planet unless we get rid of all the cows, cars and airplanes.  The primary culprit, they claim, is human emissions of green house gases - particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), belching out of everything from our cars, to our factories, to our barbecue grills.  We even emit CO2 when we breathe!   

According to this theory, increasingly presented as absolute fact, only radical reductions in CO2 emissions can possibly save us.  According to global warming proponents, "the time for debate is over" . . . and global warming skeptics should be “treated like Islamic terrorists”.

            Global warming true believers also insist that an international “consensus” of scientists agrees with this position…”the time for debate is over”… and global warming skeptics are either industry shills, incredibly misguided, or simply evil and should be silenced.

            Thus British foreign secretary Jack Straw has said that “skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and denied access to the media.”

Grist Magazine has called for Nuremberg-style “war crime” trials for those who deny that human beings are causing a global climate disaster.  (Read it yourself at and 11408/1106show_comments=no)

            George Monbiot (author of the best selling book The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order) wrote in the Guardian paper that, “Every time someone drowns as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned”.




"The only really good technology is no technology at all"

            - John Shuttleworth, Friends of the Earth.


To combat global warming, militants say we must all accept drastic reductions in our standard of living starting now, steadily increasing, year after year, until much of industrial society is swept away. Only thus can the earth, and perhaps mankind, be saved.

To achieve this radical restructuring of human society, global warming proponents demand that we give virtually unlimited power to the government to control what we eat, how we travel, and how our industries operate, with no dissent or resistance permitted.

Cars, jet travel for the public, air conditioning, refrigeration, and indeed many if not most of the conveniences of modem life will simply have to be abolished, as quickly as politically feasible.  As one environmental activist puts it, "Everything modern has to go!"

While intoning these demands, often in the language of fanatical true believers, what global warming militants seldom discuss is the real cost of their proposals - both in terms of dollars and in terms of human lives.

Just radically curtailing the use of refrigeration would result in millions of human deaths from food spoilage and contamination. Restrictions on the use of cars, airplanes and other means of transportation would wipe out much of the progress of the last 100 years.  And drastically curtailing industrial activity would result in global depression, disease and death.

Like it or not, industrial society has made possible long lives and prosperity for billions of people who otherwise would have died at a young age from poverty, disease, and starvation.

Fortunately for those of us who like regular meals, central heating, cars, and freedom, virtually every claim of the global warming lobby is dead wrong, except for the fact that the earth is warming.  But why is the earth warming and by how much?




According to the UN Panel on Climate Change, the earth indeed has been warming. . . since about 1650 AD - centuries before factories belching CO2 and other greenhouse gases even existed.  Even more important, the earth is not "the warmest it has ever been."   The same Panel makes clear that the earth was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period when human agriculture flourished!

Our climate is in fact continually changing, and the cause is not and could not be CO2.  CO2 accounts for less than 3% of all greenhouse gases, and only 6% of atmospheric CO2 is produced by human activity.  That means that less than 2/1,000 of all CO2 is produced by human activity.

 So even if we wiped out every car, power plant, jet liner, and human being from the face of the earth, there would be no noticeable effect on global CO2 levels.

The most important greenhouse gas by far is water vapor, which evaporates from oceans, lakes and rivers.  Atmospheric water vapor levels - like natural CO2 emissions from volcanoes and animals - rises and falls with changes in solar activity.

To put it another way, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is the result of changes in solar activity, not the cause of it.  Climate change is natural, continuous, and caused by changes in solar emissions. Over hundreds of thousands of years, the earth's average surface temperature has varied within a narrow 4-degree temperature range. That variation causes both "warm periods," like we are now living in, and "cold periods' accompanied by ice ages, which periodically destroy most life on earth.

More CO2 actually has a beneficent effect on the environment. As the March 2007 issue of Civil Defense Perspectives explains, "Largely because of increased CO2, the U.S. had nearly 200 billion cubic feet more standing timber in 1990 than in 1950."

While the earth's current, natural warming will have some negative effects on some groups (such as island dwellers), it will also have lots of positive effects on many more groups, including the expansion of the growing season. Besides, there is nothing we can do to control the solar cycle which causes global warming.

Remember: Our sun gives off more radiation in one second than all human activity produces in 1,000 years!

Further, even earth-bound natural forces are overwhelmingly more important in determining atmospheric greenhouse gas levels than human activity. For example, the explosion of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines on June 15, 1991, put more greenhouse gases (including water vapor) into the atmosphere than all human industrial activity in the preceding 78 years.

Yes, the world has real environmental problems caused by man, including pollution of the seas and destruction of rain forests. But the "global warming crisis" caused by mankind is a myth.




"We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

- Hockey Stick co-creator Phil Jones, replying to an inquiring Warwick Hughes.


Because telling the truth about global warming wouldn't further militant environmentalists' global warming crusade, which will give them enormous power over our lives, they often resort to distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies.

For example, while the UN's 1995 "Global Temperature Chart" clearly demonstrates that the earth was much warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, more recent UN temperature charts have eliminated the Warm Period altogether.

Instead of accurate long-term temperature information - which shows the earth periodically warming and cooling, militant environmentalists like Al Gore offer us a "hockey stick" graph fallaciously showing a steady rise in the earth's temperature for 1,000 years.

These "continuous warming" graphs contradict thoroughly documented periods when the earth was getting cooler, including the "little Ice Age" from 1450 to 1850, and a period of record cold from 1940 -1970.

In fact, the 1940-1970 cooling period resulted in a frenzy in which the media claimed that human industrial activity (particularly our old friend, CO2 emissions) was about to cause by

1995 a new ice age which would threaten all life on earth.  Popular magazines, like Popular Science, even featured terrifying pictures on their covers of major U.S. cities covered by ice.

Obviously, the environmental alarmists were completely wrong then about the impending "global cooling crisis," just as they are wrong today about the "global warming crisis."

In addition to omitting periods when the earth was cooling from their charts, global warming alarmists also omit other data, which contradicts their disaster claims, including such information as:


Š           The southern hemisphere of the earth has been generally cooling for the past fifty years,

Š           Hundreds of years of data show that temperature rises precede increase in CO2 levels, rather than following them,

Š           Ice cover at the North and South Poles is growing, which results in more glaciers breaking away

Š           Throughout the 20th century, temperatures have been rising on other planets in our solar system - including Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and Triton, Neptune's largest moon where few people drive SUVs. This clearly points to increased solar activity as the cause of global warming on the Earth, rather than any human activity.  This fact is supported by extensive NASA satellite data.




"The bad news is that the climate model on which so much effort is expended are unreliable because they still use fudge-factors rather than physics to represent important things like evaporation and convection, clouds and rainfall. "

- Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson.


The assertion that current global warming is "historically unprecedented" is also false.  The earth's climate is continually changing, and there were periods in the past when it was much, much warmer than it is today.

Cycles that drive climate change include the Earth's 100,000-year elliptical orbit around the sun, its 41,000year axial tilt cycle, and a 1,500-year solar cycle. In the most elliptical phase of the Earth's orbit, the sun's rays must travel 3 percent farther to reach the planet. The Earth's axial tilt ranges from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees and is currently at 23 degrees.

Climate on earth naturally and radically changes over time. For example, during one warm period about 50 million years ago, the Arctic had a semi-tropical climate, similar to Florida today. The Arctic Ocean was free of ice year-round, and was populated by alligators and turtles. We know that fact because fossil remains of seeds, plants and animals have been found buried deep in the Arctic.

The bottom line: Don't worry about global warming. It is not caused by human beings or by our CO2 emissions. The amount of warming that is occurring is normal and modest, and does not threaten the earth or human life. The estimated one-degree increase in the next 100 years isn't going to melt the ice caps or put London and New York ten feet under water.

Since the modest global warming we have been recently experiencing is in reality caused by a 50,000-year solar cycle interacting with the primary greenhouse gas (water vapor produced from the oceans and seas), there is nothing we can do about it even if we wanted to.

Our sun - which is millions of times larger than the earth - emits more energy in a minute than all human industrial activity in history, and there is nothing we can do to change solar activity.

Further, the moderate global warming we have been experiencing actually benefits human, animal and plant life by making winters more moderate, decreasing deaths from the cold, decreasing the need for heating, and increasing the global food supply.




"The believers {in man-made global warming] are not only intolerant of dissent - they are convinced that all skeptics must be motivated by greed or other evil forces. "

- Owen McShane, director, Centre for Resource Management Studies and co-founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.


If global warming is not man-made, not an impending disaster, and actually good for the earth, why are so many prominent people claiming the exact opposite?

The answer is found in three words is: first fear, then money and power.  Many in the environmental movement are fearful, terrified of our modern society that moves so quickly and changes so rapidly.  This is indeed sad to behold.  It is encouraged, sadly, by politicians and other forces that want to control the people of the planet.

They reward those who promote the popular global warming disaster myth with promotions, large grants, big book and video sales (like AI Gore's bestselling "An Inconvenient Truth" video), and more political power. The ideology of "impending global warming disaster" is indeed a very convenient lie for would-be power-seekers.

Literally billions of dollars (particularly from government and other globalist interests) are pouring into the coffers of environmental groups, which repeat the "global warming disaster" party line.

All of this money has resulted in the public being constantly bombarded by ever-more shrill forecasts of global warming doom and gloom. And it's getting worse. Schools are now indoctrinating children as young as five about the impending "global warming disaster."  Posters in schools warn, "Your mommy and daddy are

destroying the planet."  This just creates more fear.

"Global warming" has become the new, politically-correct truth, and those who question it are increasingly denied access to the media, refused jobs, or are stigmatized as evil "destroyers of the earth."

In fact, the claimed "scientific consensus on global warming," is largely a fraud.  One of the largest polls of climatologists ever conducted found that just 34.7 percent agreed with the contention that' global warming of a degree or two by the end of the 21st Century is caused by human industrial activity.'  Thousands of other scientists disagree even with that mild projected warming.

Skeptics include some of the world's foremost scientists: 85 climate experts who signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. . . 4,000 scientists from around the world (including 70 Nobel laureates) who signed the Heidelberg Appeal. . . and the 17,000 American scientists who signed the Oregon Petition denying that human activity was the cause of global warming.  You can see a complete list at or http://www.globalwarming

In any event, scientific fact is not established by opinion polls, but by science.  The entire process of "scientific consensus building" cited by global warming militants is largely a fraud created by a powerful political establishment to deceive the public and intimidate any unsympathetic politicians and reporters.

Here, as reported by Civil Defense Perspectives, is how the process of "consensus building" works: "Consensus-building is carried out by trained 'facilitators' who ask questions designed to elicit silence or to force individuals who might be opposed to a policy to identify themselves."

"If the facilitator is unable to quiet his objections, the process can be delayed until troublemakers are replaced by more cooperative individuals."

In other words, anyone who doesn't support the "global warming doomsday" hypothesis is simply not invited back to the next meeting, and so on, until all opposition to the predetermined global warming claims is eliminated.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared that a consensus by 2,000 scientists had determined that global warming was caused by human activity. The 'consensus' stands in public perception despite the vocal disagreement of thousands of scientists."

"Head-to-head debate is increasingly being characterized as 'childish' and as leading to 'gridlock.' [i.e., slowing down the global warming gang's power grab]. It is frequently being replaced with the consensus process, which predetermines outcomes and removes accountability to the people affected by it." ["Consensus v. Agreement," Civil Defense Perspectives, July 1997]




"Scientist Peter Doran confirmed in 2002 that the Antarctic has been cooling while climate models all predict a strong warming."

- Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, p. 127.


The world's best meteorologists using the most advanced computers cannot predict local weather two weeks in the future.  So how can global warming proponents predict the entire world's climate 50 or 100 years in the future?  The answer is that they can't. Long-term, "global climate models" can't predict cloud formation, evaporation of water from the oceans, the effect on climate of particulate matter in the atmosphere, or a thousand other variables that would have to be understood in detail - as well as the

complex interaction between all of these factors - to predict global climate even a few months in the future, much less 50 or 100 years in the future.

In fact, global warming computer disaster models are self-serving games, whose disastrous outcome is the predictable result of unproven (and often false) assumptions about the importance of CO2 and how the earth's climate behaves.

Look at it this way: To prove that a model of what will happen 50 years in the future is accurate, the model would have had to be made 50 years ago, and shown to be correct today. There are no such computer models.

Indeed, the exact opposite is true: Computer models from the 1970s predicted that by the year 2000, increasing CO2 would cause a new ice age.




"In short, if we can rise to the challenge, the permanent abolition of the wheel would have the marvelously synergistic effect of creating thousands of new jobs - as blacksmiths, farriers, grooms, and so on - at the same time as it conserved energy and saved the planet from otherwise inevitable devastation. "

            Catherine Bennett, The Guardian (UK),


            In Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, 10,000 representatives, spectators and journalists from dozens of nations met at a UN-led meeting, and created a document now known as the "Kyoto Protocols," calling for the "rich" countries of the world to reduce their emission of "greenhouse gases," particularly CO2.

A series of subsequent international meetings fleshed out the details of Kyoto, cumulating in a July 2001 conference in Bonn, Germany. To date, some 178 nations have signed or ratified the Kyoto Protocols. President Clinton of the U.S. also signed the Protocols.  However the U.S. Senate rejected ratification 96-0 due to Kyoto's flaws.

In the final Kyoto document, some 39 "rich" Western nations were called upon to reduce their emission of six greenhouse gases by the year 2012, to at least 5% below their 1990 levels of emissions.  More importantly, these called-for reductions would mean that the 39 rich western nations would have to cut emissions by some 20% below projected 2012 levels.

The only known way to achieve this would be by radical reductions in industrial activity in the west, including draconian curtailment of the use of cars and airplanes, drastic reductions in heating and air conditioning, and perhaps closing all factories one day a week.

Such cutbacks would almost certainly trigger a global depression that would cripple poor countries as well as rich countries.  However, such costs are virtually never mentioned by supporters of Kyoto. Also proposed were new global carbon taxes, emissions permits, and enforcement through UN "monitors" and police to be stationed in every western nation.

However even such drastic sacrifices to "save the earth" would in reality have little effect on greenhouse emissions or the global climate, even if militant environmentalists are right about the effect of industrial emissions on climate.

The reason is that most of the world's nations - containing at least 70% of the world's population - are not covered by the Kyoto Protocols.

That includes billions of people in rapidly-industrializing nations like China (1.2 billion people) and India (1.1 billion people), as well as the nations of South America, Africa and most of Asia. These countries are increasing their greenhouse gas emissions at record rates, yet because they are "poor," the only way most countries would sign the Kyoto accords was by being exempted from them!

As a result, even Kyoto's supporters admit that even if the Kyoto Protocols were fully implemented in all 39 western nations, at best the effect on global climate would be tiny. However, even this result is unlikely.

The more likely result of Kyoto would be the closing of industrial plants in the west and the opening of new plants in nations like China, Indonesia and India, which have far more lax environmental laws.  For example, China is powering much of its new industrial revolution with coal-fired power plants, which emit 5-10 as much CO2 and other greenhouse gases as do cleaner plants in the U.S. and Western Europe.

So the net effect of Kyoto would likely be the destruction of industry in the west, while actually increasing total global emissions of greenhouse gases.

In reality, signatories to Kyoto have not reduced their emissions of greenhouse gases and show little sign that they will in the future.  For instance in 2003-2004, "Emissions from 40 industrial nations [including the U.S.] climbed 1.6% overall to 17.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide - mainly from power plants, factories and cars." (Alister Doyle, "Rich Nations' Greenhouse Gases Up, Despite Kyoto," Environmental News Network, 9-1-06.)

However, their own lack of compliance with Kyoto has not stopped leaders and the media in other countries from condemning the U.S and President Bush for "not signing Kyoto."

For example, French foreign policy expert Guillaume Parmentier remarked: "The vast majority of Europeans would be delighted if President Bush fails to win re-election on November 2 [2004].  European animosity toward the incumbent began with his administration's rejection of the Kyoto Treaty."

In reality, the Kyoto calls for reducing greenhouse gases are unrealistic and irrelevant to climate change, since these emissions aren't causing climate change.  Further, if the Kyoto Protocols could somehow be implemented, the result would be a global economic disaster, harming poor as well as rich nations.

            In brief, Kyoto is not only an impossible, but an undesirable dream.




"You'll find more dissent at a North Korean political rally than in this program".

            - Dave Shifflett’s review for Bloomberg News of Tom Brokaw's "global warming" special, July 16,2006.


            The "global warming doomsday" theory is in fact fraught with error and bad science. It is little more than a politically-motivated power grab by politicians and extreme environmentalists, who have benefited and will continue to benefit by getting more money and more power to "save us" from ourselves.

While human industrial activity is not causing climate change, that has not stopped money-hungry bureaucrats from proposing new carbon taxes, emissions permits, and police power over every business - from your comer dry cleaner, to the largest industrial plants.

The new extreme global warming disaster agenda is in fact that old "back to the earth" socialism, which longs for a simpler time, when the king's word was law, people seldom ventured beyond the village in which they were born, and heated their homes with animal dung.

To some that sounds romantic and "eco-friendly," but for billions it would mean poverty, slavery, disease, and premature death.

Only modem industrial capitalism can provide affluence and freedom of choice for all, and only the mass consumption of energy can make modem industrial capitalism possible. By seeking to make us all feel guilty about our wealth and our consumption of energy, the global warming doomsday lobby is actually seeking to repeal the 20th century, and, in the process, to condemn billions to needless suffering and death.

If environmental extremists wish to live in 15th Century primitivism, let them move to Somalia or Madagascar, and leave the rest of us alone.




"Kyoto is the first component of an authentic global governance."  - former French President Jacques Chirac.


As voices demanding that we surrender our freedom and prosperity to prevent a non-existent climate disaster grow ever louder, so too do those with the courage to speak out against this fraud.

Among those who deserve a place in the global warming truth hall of fame are:


1) The Heartland Institute for their "Instant Expert's Guide to Global Warming", the Environment and Climate News monthly tabloid/magazine and other publications. . . ieguide.htm

The Heartland Institute

19 South LaSalle #903

Chicago, IL 60603


2) British Channel 4 which produced the excellent film, The Global Warming Swindle, which you can view or download at . . .

ISIL's Kenyan Representative James Shikwati was featured in this documentary.  He stated that attempts by the West to saddle developing countries with pathetically inadequate "green" technology like solar and wind power amounted to an attempt to block industrialization. The left's mantra he stated is: "Don't touch your oil, don't touch your coal." 

He went on to say that you can't operate a steel plant with solar collectors.  In the same program Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, who resigned because of the outlandish demands and claims of green extremists, said that depriving developing countries of essential energies was "anti-human."


3) The Competitive Enterprise Institute and Regnery Publishing, which produced and distributed The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming by Christopher Homer.


You can earn your own place in the global warming truth hall of fame by distributing this article, learning more of the truth behind global warming and speaking out whenever you can - at public forums, on radio talk shows, in newspaper editorials, and elsewhere - to expose the truth and myths of global warming.


The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and thus clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

- H.L. Mencken



This article was only slightly changed from: Freedom Network News, May-June 2007, #75, published by The International Society for Individual Liberty, 836-B Southampton Road, #299, Benicia, California 94510-1960 Tel: (707) 746-8796. Fax: (707) 746-8797. E-mail: World Wide Web:


UPDATE – 2010.  This article is still completely relevant, except that recently thousands of emails were leaked showing that many of the major “scientists” promoting global warming in fact have been faking their data, suppressing points of view that do not agree with them, and generally fraudulently promoting the global warming, now called “climate change” agenda.  They had to change the name because the globe is not warming.

The real crooks are these people, not those who question climate change and its real agenda – total control of the population through world governance and socialism.  To find out more about the thousands of leaked emails, try typing “climategate” on google or at Fox News.  The other news outlets have hardly reported this very important story that broke in November of 2009.


              Update March 2019.  A newer article on this subject is Climate Change.



Home | Hair Analysis | Saunas | Books | Articles | Detox Protocols

Courses | About Dr. Wilson | Contact Us | The Free Basic Program