Rob Dew and Kurt Nimmo
GCN Live.com
July 29, 2010

The only winners are the aluminum and fertilizer industries that work hand in hand with public water works to send toxic waste into the homes of millions across our country.

Writers Note: The following is a lengthy article with links to government documents. In order to fully understand the argument presented, it is suggested the reader save the documents and study them. Keyword searches of the terms presented below will help better understand the dangers of fluoride.

After reading an article entitled Is flouride part of globalist plot? by freelance author and technical writer Phil Elmore posted on the WorldNetDaily website, I was motivated to correct Mr. Elmore’s misconceptions. In order to do this, I have decided to present evidence concerning the health dangers of fluoride.

In order to make his argument about the safety of fluoride, Mr. Elmore cites a 1943 discovery made by Dr. H. Trendley Dean. According to Dean, 1 ppm (parts per million) of naturally occurring fluoride is an ideal concentration “to prevent cavities without staining the teeth.” In addition, the CDC claims that water fluoridation is one of the greatest health achievements of the 20th century. Apologists also make the claim that water fluoridation is beneficial to the dental health of poor children who may not have regular access to a dentist.

Currently there are two types of fluoride most commonly linked to water fluoridation. Calcium Fluoride (CaF2) — the most likely culprit of “Texas teeth” cited by Dr. Dean — and Sodium Fluoride (NaF), a common ingredient found in many pest control products including roach poison.

Sodium Fluoride has two distant cousins — hydrofluosilicic acid H2SiF6 and sodium silicofluoride Na2SiF6, which are more commonly used for water fluoridation. According to a 1992 census of public water systems, hydrofluosilicic acid (63%) is the most popular compound used with sodium silicofluoride (28%). Sodium fluoride, at 9% , follow these two compounds. In is advised you read the linked MSDS sheets for each compound.

Calcium fluoride, also known as fluorite, is a mined substance and therefore more expensive than sodium fluoride, hydrofluoric acid and sodium silicofluoride which are industrial byproducts from the production of aluminum and the phosphate fertilizer industry.

The fertilizer industry has released two toxic gasses into the atmosphere for a number of years — Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) and and Silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4). The industry was eventually convinced to add water scrubbers to trap the gasses because the result produces hydrofluorosilicic acid.

In June of 2009, Infowars was invited to tour one of Austin’s Water Treatment Plants with a local citizen group. I saw the compounds the Austin Water Utility adds to the public water supply. I can tell you without a doubt that TOXIC WASTE IS BEING ADDED TO THE WATER in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid.

During our plant visit we were allowed to video a presentation of a Q and A session. However, we were asked to turn off our cameras during the actual tour for Homeland Security reasons. Because of this we do not have photos of the two 20 thousand gallon tanks and corroded piping I observed inside a sealed room marked “hazardous,” nor do I have photos of the soft and powdery concrete that results from the small spillage that occurs when the 18 wheeled trucks — marked with “Hazardous” warnings — link up to corroded pipes feeding fluoride into the storage tanks. I also was unable to capture images of the MSDS Label Code. This code is ranked 4 under the Health Hazard designation and states: “Very short exposure could cause death or serious residual injury even though prompt medical attention was given”.

I did, however, receive an admission from the assistant director of the Austin Plant that the city uses fluorosilicic acid manufactured by the company Lucier Chemical Industries, dubbed “The fluoride specialists”. Lucier is a distribution arm of a large conglomerate called Mosaic which is a partnership between Cargill, Incorporated, and IMC Global Inc. Mosaic’s 2010 annual report contains only one reference to Fluorosilicic Acid: “Some of our Florida and Louisiana facilities produce fluorosilicic acid, which is a hazardous chemical, for resale to third parties.” The Austin Water Utility pays Lucier approximately 1 million dollars per year to add this wonder cocktail to Austin’s water supply.

In order to better understand the effects of fluorosilicic acid, consider the following description of an accident on a Florida interstate:

A spill incident of the chemical on an interstate in Florida, covering an area 600 feet long and 60 feet wide, resulted in the visit of more than 50 people to hospitals. Individuals complained of skin and respiratory irritation, including burning in the throat, and headaches. A man riding in a truck with his arm out the window experienced burning on his forearm. The effects of long-term exposure to fluorosilicic acid are changes in bone, corrosivity of the mucous membranes (e.g., ulceration of the nose, throat, and bronchial tubes), coughing, shock, pulmonary edema, fluorosis, coma, and even death. In workers engaged for approximately 30 years in the production of phosphate fertilizers, nine out of the 50 observed workers had increased bone densities. When swallowed, severe irritation of the lungs, nose, and throat can occur, as well as severe damage to the throat and stomach. A probable oral lethal dose of 50- 5000 mg/kg, classified as very toxic, has been reported for doses between 1 teaspoon and 1 ounce for a 150-pound (70-kg) person; a probable oral lethal dose of 5-50 mg/kg, classified as extremely toxic, has been reported for doses between 7 drops and 1 teaspoon for the same individual.

Seven drops of fluorosilicic acid is considered extremely toxic and potentially lethal. Remarkably, around 10 gallons per hour are pumped into Austin’s water supply. The level maintained is approximately 1ppm with the highest level being 4 ppm.

Let’s look at a few of the the safety procedures as defined by the state of Texas for the handling of fluoride-like products.

Page 13 begins with safety procedures and overfeed issues for community fluoridation. Page 17 covers recommendations for fluoride levels in schools, a rate that is more than four times the amount established for communities.

Below is a second source for school fluoride levels from a CDC 1992 survey of all water treatment plants within the United States.

The following table describes what the EPA has established as the Maximum Containment Level (MCL).

The MCL levels set by the EPA directly contradict the CDC recommended optimal levels for setting up fluoridation systems in public schools. Even the EPA’s own employees take issue with these MCL levels set at 2 ppm. A 1986 brief filed on behalf of the Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE ) cites toxicologists, chemists, physical scientists, statisticians, biologists, engineers and attorneys. NFFE acts as the exclusive representative of scientific and technical employees at EPA. The NFFE professionals claim that “serious errors were made by the Agency (EPA) in setting the fluoride Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL).” The NFFE took serious issue with the EPA’s mandates and wrote:

The process by which EPA arrived at the RMCL for fluoride is scientifically irrational and displays an unprofessional review of relevant scientific data. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires that an RMCL must be a reflection of the opinion of health professionals as to the level of a contaminant at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of persons will occur, and which allows an adequate margin of safety. However, the final RMCL for fluoride does not represent a determination made on the basis of scientific and technical expertise.

Four years later Dr. Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Adviser in EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, was fired in response to a 1990 whistle-blowing memo calling for a review of the cover-up of the National Toxicology Program study that demonstrates fluoride is a “probable human carcinogen [cancer causing agent]“:

The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study \10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride’s ability to cause mutations (a principal “trigger” mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.\11a, b, c, d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey \12 , Washington and Iowa \13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.

Still think fluoride is safe? Read the back of your tooth paste. I show this to friends who will not believe that water fluoridation is detrimental to human health. Here is a pic of what you will find on all fluoride toothpaste. Sodium monofluorophosphate is pharmaceutical grade and does not have the serious health risks of fluorosilicic acid and yet if you swallow more than a pea sized amount you are told to contact a Poison Control Center.

In order to make the case fluoride is safe, proponents cite 1940s pseudo-science, CDC statistics, and the claim that fluoride is beneficial to the dental health of poor children. The state of Texas has made the same questionable claim. “For thousands of Texans, geography serves as a barrier to oral health care. The problem is presumably worse among poor, uninsured or elderly uninsured residents of medically undeserved areas”. Since Texas fluoridates 76% of the state’s water supply, one can conclude that water fluoridation has done little to improve the dental hygiene of poor Texans and indeed the rest of the country. Regardless, both agencies strongly support expanded fluoridation despite the overwhelming evidence stacked against the practice.

Harvard university inserted itself in the fluoride controversy when one the university’s own “School of Dental Medicine epidemiologists was investigated by federal authorities for burying evidence of fluoride’s link to bone cancer.”

Chester Douglass, editor in chief of the industry-funded Colgate Oral Care Report, claimed he did not find a link between osteosarcoma and fluoride. A closed door panel determined at Harvard stated the professor did not intentionally suppress the findings. His research shows a clear carcinogenic link especially in young boys. Harvard would have us believe that when industry insiders withhold evidence in studies it is not intentional suppression. Harvard has continued to keep the findings and minutes of their investigation a secret.

Many members of the scientific community no longer ignore the facts and because of this the tide is turning against water fluoridation, a fact demonstrated by a 2007 report submitted by hundreds of scientific professionals. “Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the prestigious 2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride’s toxicology, two officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters, the President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, and hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide.” Eight years since the original brief workers at the EPA remain vocally opposed to water fluoridation. Petitioners have demanded the practice be stopped until Congress initiates an investigation.

An Australian news program todaytonight Adelaide did their own investigation into the fluoridation process.

Time magazine ranks fluoride as 4th in a list of TOP 10 COMMON HOUSEHOLD TOXINS.

The only winners in this paradigm are the aluminum and fertilizer industries working hand in hand with public water works to send a proven toxic waste into the homes of millions across the country. Americans are paying to be force-medicated and to act as bio-filters so multinational conglomerates can dispose of Superfund quality sludge in our bodies. Massive public relations campaigns keep the public in the dark and stifle proper disclosure of the evidence. Unfortunately, many Americans have grown accustomed to this type of cozy relationship between multinational corporations, government regulatory agencies and the elite scientific community.

Fluoride has no business being in our drinking water. Call and write your representatives and demand they outlaw fluoride poisoning.

Mike Adams
NaturalNews
July 29, 2010

The President’s Cancer Panel (PCP) recently released its yearly report to the President outlining the status of cancer in America. This year’s report focuses primarily on environmental factors that contribute to cancer risk. According to the report, pharmaceutical drugs are a serious environmental pollutant, particularly in the way they continue to contaminate waterways across the country (and the world).

Many reports have recently appeared about pharmaceutical contamination of water supplies, rivers, lakes and other waterways, but spokespersons from the drug and chemical industries have denied that this pollution poses any risk whatsoever to the environment. But this report, issued directly from PCP, provides a stunning indictment of the dangers associated with pharmaceutical pollution.

The executive summary of the PCP report includes the following statements:

“[P]harmaceuticals have become a considerable source of environmental contamination. Drugs of all types enter the water supply when they are excreted or improperly disposed of; the health impact of long-term exposure to varying mixtures of these compounds is unknown.”

It’s important to note that PCP is required by law to assess the National Cancer Program and offer a truthful evaluation of the various things it finds to be responsible for causing cancer. The panel is a division of the National Cancer Institute itself, so its findings hold fairly considerable weight in the scientific world (or they should, if the reaction wasn’t so politicized).

The report itself is quite extensive, evaluating everything from the environmental and health impacts of drug and pesticide pollution to cell phone radiation and nuclear testing residue. But the section on pharmaceutical drugs is especially interesting when considering the fact that numerous reports have shown that drugs and drug residue that ends up in water supplies typically isn’t filtered out by municipal treatment plants.

No laws exist to protect the public from pharmaceuticals

Many chemicals are highly regulated because they are known to negatively affect human and environmental health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is tasked with regulating exposure to these chemicals, but pharmaceuticals are not included in its regulatory scheme. Despite years of prodding by environmental scientists, the EPA has given very little attention to the dangers posed by widespread pharmaceutical contamination.

According to a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study conducted back in 2002, antidepressants, blood pressure and diabetes medications, anticonvulsants, oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy drugs, chemotherapy drugs, antibiotics, heart medications and even codeine are all showing up in the water supplies of American cities. This study was the first national-scale evaluation of pharmaceutical drug contamination in streams, and roughly 80 percent of the streams tested were found to be contaminated as well.

In 2008, an AP investigation found that at least 46 million Americans are drinking water contaminated with trace amounts of pharmaceuticals. Even though every city tested has its water treated and “purified” prior to being delivered to the public, trace amounts of pharmaceutical drugs are making their way through to the tap. (Since not all major metropolitan areas were tested, the number of people affected is likely far higher than what was reported by AP.)

In spite of all this, water quality reports don’t disclose the levels of pharmaceuticals found in tap water. Since the EPA and FDA have failed to establish any proper guidelines for drug contamination in water, most people have no idea that their water contains a dangerous cocktail of prescription medications.

Hospitals, consumers and drug companies are all responsible

None of this is surprising if you consider that unused and expired drugs cannot be legally returned to the pharmacies where they were purchased. Many people just flush them down the toilet because the drug labels actually encourage patients to dispose of them this way (and they probably don’t know what else to do with them).

People who take prescription and over-the-counter drugs will excrete them as well, contributing to the drug overload being found at wastewater treatment plants. (Drugs are not necessarily “broken down” by your digestive system.)

It is also regular protocol for hospitals to flush millions of pounds of unused medications every year, a practice that contributes significantly to water contamination.

And let’s not forget the drug companies that dump large amounts of their own pharmaceuticals into water supplies. The same AP investigation found that more than 270 million pounds of pharmaceutical compound residue is dumped every year into waterways nationwide, many of which serve as drinking water for millions of people.

The U.S. isn’t the only place where Big Pharma is dumping its waste, either. In 2009, researchers found that India’s rivers are full of dangerous pharmaceuticals, too.

One Indian river where 90 different pharmaceutical companies dump their waste tested positive for over 21 active drug ingredients. In one river alone, there was enough ciprofloxacin (a strong antibiotic) being dumped every day by drug companies to treat 90,000 people! (And scientists detected this in water that was supposedly purified by the drug companies before being released into the environment).

The drug contamination levels found in India’s rivers were 150 times the detected levels found in the U.S. These findings prove that drug companies couldn’t care less how much drug residue they dump in water as long as they can get away with it. They don’t even believe that pharmaceutical contamination is a threat to the environment.

“Based on what we now know, I would say we find there’s little or no risk from pharmaceuticals in the environment to human health,” explained microbiologist Thomas White, a consultant for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, in a Dallas Morning News article about the AP investigation. This is similar to BP’s CEO saying, after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, that the amount of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico was “tiny” compared to how big the ocean is.

Studies show drug residue cocktails actually do cause harm

Though the chemical and drug industries deny any danger from exposure to drug residue in the water, science (and common sense) says otherwise.

A 2006 study conducted by researchers from the University of Insubria in Italy simulated drug-tainted water by creating a low-level mixture of various drug residues and testing it on embryonic cells. They discovered that, even at low doses, the drug residues actually stopped cells from reproducing.

Even though current water contamination levels are measured in parts per million or parts per billion, there is no way to know just how much exposure people are actually experiencing. People drink contaminated water, shower in contaminated water and cook with contaminated water, so it’s illogical to suggest that there’s no harm being caused by widespread exposure, even at “low” doses, especially when the exposure is a combination of dozens of different drugs that have never been tested in combination.

People are not the only beings that are affected by pharmaceutical contamination, either. The world’s aquatic ecosystems (and the plants and animals that belong to them) are all being negatively impacted.

Drugs are being found in fish

According to an MSNBC report back in 2009, all kinds of drugs are being found in the bodies of fish near major U.S. cities. Researchers found drugs for high cholesterol, allergies, high blood pressure, bipolar disorder and depression in the livers and tissue of fish.

Researchers are in agreement that aquatic species of all types are being harmed by continuous exposure to water contaminated with pharmaceuticals. Even though wastewater is treated in the U.S. before entering waterways, most treatment facilities do not have the proper filtering technology to remove dangerous drug residues from wastewater before it gets dumped.

Many fish are experiencing reproductive problems as a result of exposure, as is explained in the following report:

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23504633/)

Beyond having their sperm damaged, some fish are actually changing sexes. Males are becoming females and females are becoming males as a result of drug exposure in the water. Other water creatures are experiencing things like organ failure and the inability to grow. It makes a reasonable person ask “How long until these effects start to hit humans?”

Or have they already?

“We have no reason to think that this is a unique situation. We find pretty much anywhere we look, these compounds are ubiquitous,” explained Erik Orsak, an environmental contaminants specialist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to the findings.

And it’s not just near American cities where fish are turning up with all kinds of drugs in their bodies. As of 2008, more than 100 different pharmaceutical compounds have been detected around the world, affecting fish and wildlife everywhere. These are chemicals that simply do not belong in our environment. And yet they are there, dumped into our waters by the pharmaceutical industry and its hospitals, pharmacies and consumers.

Why we need more research on the toxicity of pharmaceutical contaminants

Many animal studies have been or are being conducted on pharmaceutical exposure, and they are indicating that these drugs are causing widespread harm. But very few official human trials have been conducted, prompting many to push for increased efforts.

If drug residue is building up in animals and wildlife, then of course it’s building up in humans as well, posing the risk of significant harm. Reproductive failure, thyroid dysfunction, cancer, osteoporosis — all of these diseases and more may be caused, at least in part, by prolonged exposure to low levels of all sorts of drugs in the water supply.

Many states pushing for drug waste legislation

Because the truth about drug contamination in water is no longer a secret, many states have begun enacting legislation to regulate drug disposal. Last August, Illinois passed the Safe Pharmaceuticals Disposal Act, which restricts hospitals from flushing drugs down the drain.

California has a similar law in place, and New York is working on one as well, according to a recent report:

(http://www.westfaironline.com/hudso…)

The same report indicates that there have been five bills introduced to regulate drugs at the federal level.

While this addresses the hospital waste problem, there’s still the human and drug company waste problems. No matter how you look at it, pharmaceutical drugs are going to continue making their way into the water supplies because they will pass through the bodies of consumers first!

Drug companies must be held responsible for their wastewater

Since it’s already been revealed that drug companies are failing to properly treat their wastewater before dumping it into rivers (even though they claim to be treating it), U.S. regulatory agencies need to step up and correct the problem. Regular monitoring of wastewater contaminant levels is the only way to halt the chemical contamination of waterways.

And if U.S. companies are polluting water supplies in other countries (such as India), they should be held accountable for their actions. There’s no excuse for U.S. companies to pollute anywhere in the world just because they’re operating outside domestic borders.

Wastewater treatment plants should be retrofitted

State and local legislators would do well to put forth their own legislation to upgrade wastewater treatment facilities so they can properly filter out pharmaceuticals (and dispose of them safely). Since there’s no way to stop human elimination of pharmaceuticals (apart from slowly educating the masses to stop swallowing dangerous pharmaceuticals), municipalities need to do their part to prevent these dangerous toxins from getting into water supplies in the first place.

Together, these measures would help to drastically reduce the amount of pharmaceutical waste entering our environment.

It’s the environment, stupid!

The careless disposal of toxic pharmaceuticals is proving to be highly destructive, despite reassurances by some that it’s not that big of a deal. The health of the planet and all of its amazing biodiversity is now threatened by the steady poisoning of toxic chemical pharmaceuticals.

And it’s not just pharmaceuticals, either. Chemical byproducts and waste from many different industries are polluting our environment at unprecedented rates. Mercury (from dental fillings), fluoride (dripped into the public water supply on purpose, if you can believe that!), and all sorts of other chemicals and heavy metals are showing up in food, water and the global environment.

Haven’t we poisoned our planet enough already?

Plants, animals and even humans can only take so much of this. That’s why we need to keep fighting against the corporations that are causing this harm and force them to stop destroying the world in which we hope to raise our children.

After all, if we keep poisoning the planet at this rate, there won’t be much left to offer future generations except a toxic stew of patent-protected chemicals that all the corporations pretend pose no problem at all.

Marc Morano
Climate Depot
July 26, 2010

Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement.

In a hard-hitting and exclusive new exclusive video just released by Climate Depot, Dr. Rancourt declares that the entire man-made global warming movement is nothing more than a “corrupt social phenomenon.” “It is as much psychological and social phenomenon as anything else,” Rancourt, who has published peer-reviewed research, explained in a June 8, 2010 essay.

Watch Rancourt video here.

“I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized,” Rancourt said.

“Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass,” he asserted.

Rancourt’s dissent on man-made climate fears has not set well with many of his fellow green friends. “When I tell environmental activists that global warming is not something to be concerned about, they attack me — they shun me, they do not allow me to have my materials published in their magazines, editors,” Rancourt explained to Climate Depot.

Rancourt bluntly examines why his fellow environmentalists are wrapped up in promoting climate alarm. (Note: Rancourt also ridicules environmental concern over acid rain and the ozone hole. See below)

“They look for comfortable lies that they can settle into and alleviate the guilt they feel about being on privileged end of the planet — a kind of survivors guilt. A lot of these environmentalists are guilt laden individuals who need to alleviate the guilt without taking risks,” he said. “They are weekend activists…looking for lies to hitch onto.”

“The modern environmental move has hijacked itself by looking for an excuse to stay comfortable and stay away from actual battle. Ward Churchill has called this pacifism as pathology,” he explained. “If you are really concerned about saving world’s forests or habitat destruction, then fight against habitat destruction, don’t go off in tenuous thing about co2 concentration in the atmosphere. Actually address the question; otherwise you are weakening your effect as an activist.”

Rancourt openly expresses his hostility for former Vice President Al Gore’s 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”

“I felt ill walking out of the theatre. It’s terrible. It does not respect the intelligence the viewer. The film does not acknowledge people can think for themselves at all,” Rancourt said.

Rancourt lamented how “environmentalists could just gobble this up and agree with [Gore's film] in a non critical fashion.”

Gore “strikes me as someone working for someone — as someone who will financially benefit from this. He does not give me impression of someone who genuinely cares about environmental or social justice.

Rancourt spared no mercy for the embattled UN IPCC. The scientists are “named by governments, they are scientists who accept to serve a political role. Their mission is to write a report” that “is meant to be used by government. Their goal is find a conclusion…it is a political process.” [Editor's Note: Climate Depot's Executive Editor Marc Morano appeared on Dr. Denis Rancourt's Radio Show for One Hour in May 2010: Morano: The global warming narrative...was total bunko, it was a con job...a scientific scandal of the highest order']

Rancourt is also very critical of proposed global warming carbon trading or cap and trade.

“Someone is going to make a lot of money from these schemes. I have great distrust for it. It is not motivated by true concern for social justice and the environment. It can only be about powerful financiers. I see it as an horrendous scam,” Rancourt said, adding he “I completely agree” with UK environmental guru James Lovelock who called carbon trading “verging on a gigantic scam.”

But it is his fellow University professors that Rancourt has the least amount of patience with.

“They are all virtually all service intellectuals. They will not truly critique, in a way that could threaten the power interests that keep them in their jobs. The tenure track is just a process to make docile and obedient intellectuals that will then train other intellectuals,” Rancourt said.

“You have this army of university scientists and they have to pretend like they are doing important research without ever criticizing the powerful interests in a real way. So what do they look for, they look for elusive sanitized things like acid rain, global warming,” he added. This entire process “helps to neutralize any kind of dissent,” according to Rancourt.

“When you do find something bad, you quickly learn and are told you better toe the line on this — your career depends on it,” Rancourt said.

Some Key Excerpts from Denis Rancourt:

Left-wing Env. Scientist & Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt: Some Big Lies of Science – June 2010

Rancourt Excerpt: Environmental scientists naively and knowingly work hand in hand with finance-corporate shysters, mainstream media, politicians, and state and international bureaucrats to mask real problems and to create profit opportunities for select power elites…I exposed the global warming cooptation scam in an essay that Alexander Cockburn writing in The Nation called ‘one of the best essays on greenhouse myth-making from a left perspective.’ [...]

My essay prompted David F. Noble to research the question and write The Corporate Climate Coup to expose how the media embrace followed the finance sector’s realization of the unprecedented potential for revenues that going green could represent. [...] I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized.”

“Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass.”

Rancourt Ridicules Ozone Hole Claims: ‘Do you know of anyone who has been killed by the ozone hole?’

Rancourt Mocks Acid Rain Claims: As a physicist and Earth scientist turned environmental scientist, I could not find an example of a demonstrated negative impact on lakes or forests from acid rain. In my opinion, contrary to the repeated claims of the scientist authors, the research on acid rain demonstrates that acid rain could not possibly have been the problem’ – I concluded it had been a fake problem. [...] Acid rain very, very similar to global warming. A Sanitized problem. What I found, researched from the 1950’s on and I concluded that is had been a fake problem. The effect on lake acidity from acid rain was so subtle so difficult to measure — virtually impossible to measure [hype about acid rain was] at a period when forests being destroyed by real things.

#

Rancourt is not alone among left-of-center scientists and activists from dissenting on man-made global warming. (Excerpts from 2009 Environment & Public Works Committee Ranking Member Sen. James Inhofe speech)

Sen. Inhofe: It is becoming increasingly clear that skepticism about man-made global warming fear is not a partisan left vs. right issue. In fact, many scientists and activists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has “co-opted” or “hijacked” the green movement.

In August 2009, the science of global warming was so tenuous that even activists at green festivals were expressing doubts over man-made climate fears. “One college professor, confided to me in private conversation that, ‘I’m not sure climate change is real,’” according to a report from the New York Green Festival.

The left-wing blog Huffington Post surprised many by featuring an article on January 3, 2009, by Harold Ambler, demanding an apology from Gore for promoting unfounded global warming fears. The Huffington Post article accused Gore of telling “the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind” because he claimed the science was settled on global warming. The Huffington Post article titled “Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted” adds, “It is Mr. Gore and his brethren who are flat-Earthers,” not the skeptics.

The Huffington Post article continues, “Let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day.”

UK atmospheric scientist Richard Courtney, a left-of-political center socialist, is another dissenter of man-made climate fears. Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant, is a self-described socialist who also happens to reject man-made climate fears. Courtney declared in 2008 that there is “no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHG (greenhouse gases) and global temperature.”

Joining Courtney are many other progressive environmentalist scientists:

Former Greenpeace member and Finnish scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a lecturer of environmental technology and a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland who has authored 200 scientific publications, is also skeptical of man-made climate doom. Ahlbeck wrote in 2008, “Contrary to common belief, there has been no or little global warming since 1995 and this is shown by two completely independent datasets. But so far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” (LINK)

Scientist and life-long liberal Democrat rejects climate fears

Life-long liberal Democrat Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry, also declared his dissent of warming fears in 2008. “As a scientist and life-long liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming to be a disservice to science,” Hertzberg wrote. “The global warming alarmists don’t even bother with data! All they have are half-baked computer models that are totally out of touch with reality and have already been proven to be false,” Hertzberg added. (LINK)

Ivy League Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack, the former chair of Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, publicly announced he voted for Gore in 2000 and said he would do so again. But Giegengack does not agree with Gore’s science views and states that global warming does not even qualify as one of the top ten ENVIRONMENTAL problems facing the world, let alone one of the top problems. “In terms of [global warming's] capacity to cause the human species harm, I don’t think it makes it into the top 10,” Giegengack said in an interview in the May/June 2007 issue of the Pennsylvania Gazette. (LINK)

‘Intellectual blasphemy’

Other liberal environmental scientists and activists are now joining Giegengack.

Alexander Cockburn, a maverick journalist who leans left on most topics, lambasted the alleged global-warming consensus on the political Web site CounterPunch.org, arguing that there’s no evidence yet that humans are causing the rise in global temperature. After publicly speaking to reject man-made warming fears, Cockburn wrote on February 22, 2008, “I have been treated as if I have committed intellectual blasphemy.” Cockburn harshly critiqued the political left for embracing climate alarmism. “This turn to climate catastrophism is tied into the decline of the left, and the decline of the left’s optimistic vision of altering the economic nature of things through a political program. The left has bought into environmental catastrophism because it thinks that if it can persuade the world that there is indeed a catastrophe, then somehow the emergency response will lead to positive developments in terms of social and environmental justice,” Cockburn wrote. [See: A July 2007 and a March 2008 report detail how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK & LINK ]

CNN – not exactly a bastion of conservatism – had yet another of its meteorologists dissent from warming fears. Chad Myers, a meteorologist for 22 years and certified by the American Meteorological Society, spoke out against anthropogenic climate claims on CNN in December. “You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said during “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on December 18, 2008. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure,” Myers explained.

Myers joins fellow CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano, who compared Gore’s film to ‘fiction’ in 2007, and CNN anchor Lou Dobbs who just said of global warming fear promotion on January 5, “It’s almost a religion without any question.”

Perhaps the biggest shock to the global warming debate was the recent conversion of renowned French geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre from being a believer in dangerous man-made warming fears to being a skeptic. Allegre, a former French Socialist Party leader and a member of both the French and U.S. Academies of Science, was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, but he now says the cause of climate change is “unknown.” He ridiculed what he termed the “prophets of doom of global warming” in a September 2006 article. (LINK) Allegre has authored more than 100 scientific articles, written 11 books, and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States. He now believes the global warming hysteria is motivated by money. “The ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!” he explained.

‘Hijacked’ environmental left

Left-wing Professor David Noble of Canada’s York University has joined the growing chorus of disenchanted liberal activists. Noble now believes that the movement has “hyped the global climate issue into an obsession.” Noble wrote a May 8, 2007, essay entitled “The Corporate Climate Coup” which details how global warming has “hijacked” the environmental left and created a “corporate climate campaign,” “divert[ing] attention from the radical challenges of the global justice movement.” (LINK)

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University, and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, converted from believer to a skeptic about global warming. Bellamy, a committed environmentalist, now says that shift cost him his career at the BBC. Bellamy said in 2008, “My opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide has anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science. There’s no proof, it’s just projections and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs.” (LINK)

Geologist Peter Sciaky echoes this growing backlash of left-wing activists about global warming. Sciaky, who describes himself as a “liberal and a leftist” wrote on June 9, 2007, “I do not know a single geologist who believes that [global warming] is a man-made phenomenon.”

Ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace founding member, has also joined the ranks of the dissenters. “It is clear the contention that human-induced CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels in the global atmosphere are the cause of the present global warming trend is a hypothesis that has not yet been elevated to the level of a proven theory. Causation has not been demonstrated in any conclusive way,” Moore, the chief scientist for Greenspirit, wrote in 2006. (End Inhofe Speech Excerpt)

Matt Cover
CNS News
July 19, 2010

Maryland will join Pennsylvania as the second state to use federal tax dollars to pay for abortions under the new health care law signed by President Barack Obama in March, according to information released by Maryland’s State Health Insurance Plan.

Maryland will receive $85 million in federal funds for its federally mandated high-risk insurance pool, which will cover abortions. As CNSNews.com reported on July 14, Pennsylvania will receive $160 million in federal funds for its high-risk insurance pool, which will also cover abortions.

During the debate over the health-care bill, President Obama delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress, saying: “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.”

The day the House voted to pass that bill, President Obama also signed an executive order purporting to prevent federal funding of abortions in the programs it created.

Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.), the chairman of the House Republican Conference, said Friday that the fact that Maryland will now use federal dollars to fund abortions under a program mandated by the health-care law signed by President Obama represents a “broken promise.

Full article here

Jurriaan Maessen
GCN Live.com
July 19, 2010

	Professor John Cleland said globalists should cease using coded language when communicating to the general public.

At a 2006 gathering of top globalists devoted to the “family planning agenda” under the umbrella-name “Demographic Dynamics and Socio-Economic Development”, professor of Medical Demography at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, John Cleland, admitted to the fact that they (the group of pro-death globalists to which he himself belongs) should cease using coded language when communicating to the general public.

In a 2008 press release by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Cleland was honoured for his work on population issues. Besides, he was acclaimed for his influence “scientifically and with regards to policy.

The gathering was attended by the usual suspects. Representatives were present of the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, the European Commission, the World Bank and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

“No more shrouding our statements in code. Because code just confuses people.”, the professor said (page 33 in the document).

In his speech, Cleland argued quite forcefully to do away with the Orwellian language and just come out honestly with the true mission they have set out to pursue.

“It does this cause no service at all to continue to shroud family planning in the obfuscating phrase “sexual and reproductive health”. People don’t really know what it means. If we mean family planning or contraception, we must say it. If we are worried about population growth, we must say it. We must use proper, straightforward language. I am fed up with the political correctness that daren’t say the name population stabilization, hardly dares to mention family planning or contraception out of fear that somebody is going to get offended. It is pathetic!”

Now this is remarkably straightforward language by a top globalist, seldom witnessed in communique’s that can be readily downloaded. He is clearly advocating to abandon the coded language used by the globalists in order to sell eugenics more easily to the subjects they desire to subdue.

“I put it to you that, in a world of 12 billion, the steps necessary to stabilize the world’s environment will have to be much more draconian than in the world of, say, eight billion.”, the professor impressed upon his audience.