This article summarizes the documentary video “Global Warming or Global Governance?” by Michael Coffman of Sovereignty International, presenting video segments from the video with descriptions and transcripts where appropriate.

The documentary examines the science and motives behind claims of the effects of global warming being extreme and created mostly by man’s activities, and shows how such claims are frequently exaggerated for deceptive and dangerous ulterior motives.

From the official website:

If you were to ask ten people on the street if mankind was causing global warming, at least eight out of ten would say yes. After all, Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth allegedly provides incontrovertible evidence that this is the case. Both presidential candidates are committed to passing economically devastating legislation that will do little to nothing to stop global warming. Contrary to what is heard in the media, however, there is overwhelming evidence that the warming we are experiencing is natural, with maybe a small amount contributed by man’s activities. Nor is there any scientific consensus. 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide is causing...catastrophic” warming. The debate is still raging within the scientific community. In this DVD, Sovereignty International has put together interviews of respected climate scientists and biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why Al Gore and the global warming alarmists are incorrect. In some cases, blatantly so.

The DVD also provides evidence that the global warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance. Hear from congressmen, experts and even well-known news broadcasters how global governance puts global institutions, especially the United Nations (UN), that are not accountable to the American people in control of every aspect of our economy. The skyrocketing gas and food prices today are a direct result of this agenda.

This article is a summary of points made in the article “Cap and Trade”, by Ed Hiserodt for “The New American Magazine,” September 17, 2009. The article discusses issues concerning the 1,400 page “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” (Resolution 587) which was rushed through the US Congress on June 26, 2009 without adequate time for the bill to be read or for any meaningful debate. The act was passed by a vote of 219-212 and was essentially ignored by the media. The US Senate is now considering the bill.

The article explains how the legislation is meant to give the United States Government unprecedented power to control the allocation of energy resources through the use of taxable and tradable “emission allowances” which are based on the amount of Carbon Dioxide that each business would be calculated to be putting into the atmosphere. It is explained how the legislation would amount to being an extremely expensive energy tax that would be wastefully applied and having much potential for abuse by political elites.



Following are key points made in the article speaking about the recently passed “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009”:

- The legislation imposes government established limits on emissions of Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gasses except water vapor for all business entities, despite the fact that many questions exist about man’s contribution of those gasses having a significant effect on the actual warming of the climate— with an example cited being the fact that many computer simulations are now showing that the proposed CO2 reductions would only result in the reduction of temperature rise of less than one degree Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Also mentioned is the fact that none of the 22 most cited computer climate models were able to accurately predict the extent of the cooling of the atmosphere which has happened during this decade.

- The proposed laws would give big government and politicians unprecedented control over the allocation of energy resources, which would mean that businesses would have to “contribute” to campaigns of increasingly powerful political bosses in order to survive, and decision making would also be delegated to environmental advocates whose goal is not a vibrant industrial economy but rather drastic reductions of energy consumption rates to pre-1900 levels. Decisions concerning every facet of the personal lives of all citizens would be effected by this legislation, as well as the United State’s foreign relations and international commerce being heavily effected.

- The bill is over 1,428 pages and it is full of confusing and ambiguous language. Also the bill relies on many regulations and codes which are defined elsewhere and difficult for the average citizen to obtain.

- Sections of the legislation define specifically what “cap and trade” means, referring to how the Federal Government would issue a limited number of tradable “emission allowances” representing units of greenhouse gasses being emitted for virtually every business. Many of the allowances would initially be given out for free and then progressively limited over time as the value of the allowances and resulting tax revenue generated increases for the government.

- Implementation of “cap and trade” legislation includes electric utility companies initially receiving 43 percent of the total free allowances in 2012 which would then be progressively reduced to zero by 2030, making the utilities “fight it out” to get the increasingly scarce and expensive allowances. Also, oil refineries would initially receive only 2 percent of the free allowances— which would make them initially need to dramatically raise their prices out of range of being competitive against petroleum from overseas, thus putting many out of business.

- Potential of abuse by “traders” and “brokers” of carbon credits exists, and Al Gore is said to be on the verge of becoming the first “global warming billionaire,” and also Ken Lay of the Enron scandal was very interested in the idea of “cap and trade.”

- A snapshot of near future scenarios of the legislation being implemented shows the rise of a huge bureaucracy associated with managing the endless tasks associated with determining and tracking emissions allocations, energy costs skyrocketing due to the new system, the administrator of the EPA having great power in deciding how the carbon credits would be distributed, and even potential problems cropping up which could lead to starvation in poorer countries due to the accumulation and sale of carbon credits associated with the agriculture business.

- For an average American family, the legislation would increase yearly natural gas costs by $519, the yearly bill for coal generated electricity would be $3,800, the cost of gasoline would rise by $1 per gallon, and the prices of consumer products would also rise by a significant amount as well.

- Wind and solar power are widely viewed by many as being “energy salvation,” however they have many practical limitations in replacing traditional power sources.

- A large proportion of the new “green” jobs would be created for staffing massive bureaucracies necessary to manage emission allocations used by all American businesses and eventually also households. Also an “energy police” would monitor the amount of energy use as well as making sure that the energy being used comes from renewable sources.

- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has started to investigate the potential of harm resulting from “cap and trade” legislation, as has requested that the Environmental Protection Agency hold a hearing proving the legitimacy of evidence for man-made global warming, and the EPA is expected to deny the request. The Chamber of Commerce has created the Alliance for Clear Climate Economics and Science Solutions (ACCESS) which is to ensure that regulation of greenhouse gasses is based on sound science and will not harm the economy.

- The EPA is not being forthcoming with a recent research report showing that CO2 is not the forcing agent for a warming planet, and the researcher Alan Carlin has presented data showing that solar activity and possibly related Pacific decadal oscillations were likely the causes of the rise in global temperatures that started at the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 1800’s and continuing today.

- In closing, the article mentions that great economic damage could happen to the country after only a few year if the legislation is implemented, explaining that the ramifications of the “cap and trade” legislation would be far more extreme than the current health care legislation which is currently being opposed by many citizens.

Asthma is the most conspicuous example of the extent to which the conventional wisdom on air pollution is demonstrably false. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the incidence of asthma in the United States rose 75 percent from 1980 to 1996, and nearly doubled for children. This rise in the asthma rate may have leveled off since then. (34) Researchers have proffered a number of hypotheses to account for the rise - from increased exposure to roach allergens in urban areas to a decrease in exposure to infectious agents as a result of antibacterial cleansers and antibiotics. (35) But air pollution cannot be the cause, since it declined at the same time asthma prevalence increased. Figure IV displays trends in asthma and various air pollutants for California. The graph displays data for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and PM10. While the incidence of asthma has more than doubled in California since 1982, air pollutants of all kinds have steadily declined.


“Asthma levels rose while air pollution levels declined.”



The pattern of hospital visits for asthma suggests air pollution cannot be significantly exacerbating the condition. For example, emergency room visits and hospitalizations for asthma are lowest during July and August, when ozone levels are highest. (36)

Similarly, a study of California children found that while higher ozone was associated with a greater risk of developing asthma for children who played three or more team sports (8 percent of children in the study), higher ozone was also associated with a 30 percent lower risk of asthma among all children in the study. Other air pollutants, such as nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter, were also associated with a lower risk of developing asthma.



“Hospital admissions for asthma are lowest in summer, when ozone levels are highest.”


International data also show that air pollution is not causing asthma. Asthma rates are highest in wealthy Western countries that have relatively low air pollution levels, while developing countries with awful air pollution have low asthma rates. (37) Before 1991, for example, the former East Germany had high air pollution levels and low asthma prevalence. But after reunification East Germans adopted Western lifestyles, incomes increased and air pollution declined - but the incidence of asthma rose to levels comparable to West Germany. (38)






Pollution and Long-Term Effects on Respiratory Health

Popular portrayal and reality also diverge when it comes to the long-term effects of air pollution on respiratory health. In addition to asthma, the Children’s Health Study assessed the relationship between air pollution and growth in children’s lung function. (39) After following more than 1,700 children from age 10 to 18 over the years 1993 to 2001, the study reported no association between ozone and lung growth or capacity. (40) The Children’s Health Study included communities with higher ozone than have ever occurred anywhere else in the country, and even the CHS communities no longer have ozone anywhere near that high. This suggests that even the worst ozone levels in the country are not affecting children’s lung development. (41)

Unlike ozone, PM2.5 actually was associated with a small effect on lung development. Living in an area with PM2.5 concentrations two times greater than the federal standard of 15 µg/m3 was associated with about a 1 percent to 2 percent decrease in lung capacity. (42) Thus, even particulate levels far higher than the federal standard were associated with minimal health effects. And even the areas where the study was performed no longer have PM2.5 levels anywhere near this high.

Despite the minimal effects of air pollution, the press release from the University of Southern California researchers who conducted the study created a misleading appearance of serious harm. Titled “Smog May Cause Lifelong Lung Deficits,” the press release asserted: “By age 18, the lungs of many children who grow up in smoggy areas are underdeveloped and will likely never recover.” (43)







Pollution and Other Health Conditions

Although they don’t publicize it, even regulators and environmental activists have quietly concluded that air pollution is a minor factor in Americans’ health.


Power plants contribute roughly a third of all PM2.5 in the United States, yet even environmentalists have concluded, implicitly at least, that they are a minor contributor to respiratory and cardiovascular distress. (48)

How can CARB, EPA and environmentalists estimate that air pollution has a minor quantitative role in public health but then create an impression of widespread harm in their rhetoric? They simply don’t publicize the quantitative estimates and sometimes do not even calculate them explicitly. However, their own estimates show that air pollution is responsible for at most 1 percent or 2 percent of all instances of respiratory and cardiovascular distress. (49)

“Regulators obscure evidence that air pollution has minor health effects.”

Is Air Pollution Deadly? The most serious claim leveled against air pollution is that even current, historically low air pollution prematurely kills tens of thousands of Americans each year, mainly due to soot (PM2.5), but also ozone. (50) The air in developed countries today is by far the cleanest air humans have breathed since the industrial revolution began. And urban air in developed countries today is likely the cleanest urban air humans have breathed since cities were first formed. (51) Can these low levels of air pollution really be killing tens of thousands of Americans each year? Controlled human and animal studies suggest the answer is no.

Even air pollution levels many times greater than Americans ever breathe do not kill laboratory animals. As a recent review concluded, “It remains the case that no form of ambient PM has been shown, experimentally or clinically, to cause disease or death at concentrations remotely close to U.S. ambient levels.” (52)

For example, a Health Effects Institute (HEI) study exposed healthy and asthmatic human volunteers to concentrated ambient PM2.5 collected in the Los Angeles area and had them exercise to increase their respiration rates and therefore their pollution exposures. (53) This represents a “worst-case,” real-world PM2.5 exposure. Even in areas with the highest PM2.5 levels in the country, peak hourly levels rarely exceed even half the level used in this study. (54)

Despite the relatively high PM2.5 levels, there were no changes in symptoms or lung function in either the healthy or asthmatic subjects, and there was little evidence of inflammatory responses.


“Regulators ignore their own studies that find few health effects from pollution.”


Another HEI study exposed both healthy and asthmatic volunteers to high levels of diesel soot for two hours while they intermittently exercised. (55) Once again, despite the high exposure, the researchers found little evidence of an inflammatory response, and the healthy subjects exhibited more evidence of inflammation than the asthmatics.

This laboratory evidence suggests that low-level air pollution does not cause premature death. The claim that air pollution prematurely kills tens of thousands of Americans each year instead rests on indirect evidence from so-called “observational” studies in which researchers look for correlations between air pollution and risk of death.







What They’re Not Telling You

The small effects of air pollution estimated by government agencies are still exaggerations of the real harm from air pollution because they ignore contrary evidence. For example, researchers from Kaiser Permanente studied the relationship between air pollution and emergency room visits and hospitalizations in California’s Central Valley, and reported that higher ozone was associated with a statistically significant decrease in serious health effects, such as hospital admissions. (56) CARB omitted this study from its estimate of the ostensible benefits of a tougher ozone standard. (57) Yet CARB must have been aware of the Kaiser study, because CARB funded it. EPA also did not mention the Kaiser study in its review of ozone health effects. (58)

Omission of contrary evidence on air pollution and health is common in environmental policy activism. At a March 2006 CARB board meeting, staff members gave a detailed presentation on an epidemiological study of the Los Angeles region that reported a stronger link between PM2.5 and mortality than suggested in previous research. (59) What the CARB staff did not tell its board is that another California study concluded that PM2.5 was having no effect on mortality. (60) Several California papers, including the Los Angeles Times, covered the study with alarming findings, but none covered the study that found no effects.

Three journal articles have used data from CARB’s Children’s Health Study to assess whether ozone is associated with increases in school absences. One study reported an increase. (61) Two reported no effect. (62) CARB cited only the first study in its recommendation to tighten California’s ozone standard. (63)

Likewise, the American Lung Association’s Medical Journal Watch Web site mentions only the first. Medical Journal Watch summarizes hundreds of air pollution health studies. (64) But the site omits studies and portions of studies that do not report any harm from air pollution. (65) For example, it does not mention the two studies described above, which found little or no adverse health effects in human volunteers who breathed high levels of PM2.5 and diesel soot, respectively.

Omitting contrary results makes claims of harm from air pollution appear more consistent and robust than suggested by the actual weight of the scientific evidence.







Behind the Myth: Bad Science - The Problem with Observational Epidemiology Studies

Many studies on the health effects of air pollution a type known as “observational” studies. In observational studies, researchers might follow a large group of people from several different areas and see if there is any correlation between air pollution levels and health. Or they might look within an area for correlations between fluctuations in pollution levels and the numbers of deaths or hospital admissions over time.


“Health problems are linked to factors other than air pollution.”







Confounding

Since observational studies are based on nonrandom data, they risk turning up chance correlations between air pollution and health that aren’t due to air pollution at all. For example, if people who live in high-pollution cities are more likely to be overweight or smoke, the studies might attribute health effects to air pollution that were actually caused by poor health habits. This problem, called “confounding,” occurs when some third factor is correlated with both health status and air pollution levels. Researchers take steps to try to control for confounding. However, experience has shown that it is generally impossible to remove all important sources of confounding.

For example, the National Morbidity, Mortality and Air Pollution Study (NMMAPS) reported that in about one-third of the 90 cities studied, higher levels of particulate matter and ozone were associated with lower risks of premature death. (66) How could air pollution kill people in some cities but save them in others? More likely both effects are the spurious result of uncontrolled confounding.

Another recent study showed that previous attempts to link daily air pollution fluctuations with premature deaths suffered from uncontrolled confounding due to weather. Higher temperatures in the summer are associated with higher ozone levels. But heat stress increases people’s risk of death independently of air pollution levels, so inadequately accounting for weather could cause one to conclude that ozone increases mortality when in fact heat stress was the culprit. Two British researchers recently showed that accounting for this and other previously ignored weather effects eliminates the apparent harm from both ozone and particulate matter. (67)

As the sidebar shows, findings from many medical health studies that were based on observational techniques were later shown to be the spurious result of confounding. [See the image below “The Problem of Confounding.”]







Publication Bias and Data Mining

Another challenge to the validity of air pollution health effects studies are problems known as publication bias and data mining. Publication bias refers to the tendency of researchers to seek publication of - and for journals to accept - mainly those studies that find a statistically significant effect, while not publishing studies that do not find an effect. (68)

The related problem of data mining refers to the risk that observational studies can become statistical fishing expeditions that turn up chance correlations, rather than real causal relationships. In other words, scientists tend to choose statistical models to maximize the size of the effect they “expect” or “hope” to find and are more likely to seek publication of studies that find the desired effect. This means the tendency of observational studies to give false indications of risk (or of health benefits) is not random.

If low-level air pollution really has no effect on health, publication bias and data mining would not result in equal numbers of studies reporting harmful and protective effects of air pollution. Rather, because researchers are expecting to find harmful effects, and the funding agencies (usually environmental regulatory agencies or the National Institutes of Health) provide the funding with the intention of demonstrating harm from low-level air pollution, publication bias and data mining favor false indications of harm.

“Scientific journals tend to publish studies that find harm from air pollution and reject studies that find no effect.”







Spurious Risk Estimates

Many researchers consider spurious risk estimates to be a major problem in medical and health research in general. Several new journals - the Journal of Spurious Correlations, the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine and the Journal of Negative Observations in Genetic Oncology - have been created specifically to publish negative results and expose spurious risk estimates from previous studies; more such journals are on the drawing board. (69) The problem of spurious risk estimates is especially likely when the subjects are not randomly selected and the putative risks are small - weaknesses that characterize all the observational air pollution studies EPA uses to set health standards. (70)

There are many more examples of observational studies turning up false “evidence” of harm in the form of spurious air pollution-mortality correlations. For example, EPA relied largely on an American Cancer Society (ACS) cohort study to justify its annual PM2.5 standard. However, a reanalysis of the ACS data showed that PM2.5 apparently kills men, but not women; those with no more than a high school degree, but not those with at least some college; and those who said they were moderately active, but not the very active or the sedentary. (71) Results like these are biologically implausible and suggest a failure to adequately control for confounding by nonpollution factors.

Furthermore, when migration rates into and out of various cities over time were added to the ACS statistical model relating PM2.5 and risk of death, the apparent effect of PM2.5 disappeared. (72) Cities that lost population during the 1980s - Midwest “rust belt” cities - also had higher PM2.5 levels. People left these cities, which were in economic decline, in search of work in more economically dynamic parts of the country. But people who work and have the wherewithal to migrate also tend to be healthier than the average person. Hence, what appeared to be an effect of PM2.5 was actually the result of relatively healthier people leaving cities with higher than average pollution levels. Migration was just one of several confounding factors that diminished or erased the apparent harm from PM2.5 but were not accounted for by the ACS researchers.





The original article may be viewed at this link.

A directory of all pages which this document is a part of may be viewed at this link.

References for this article may be viewed at this link.

Cynthia Ann McKinney is Georgia's first African-American Congresswoman and an internationally known advocate for voting rights, human rights, and the strengthening of business ties between Africa and the United States.

This page includes information about the Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, including an audio interview, video of her confronting Donald Rumsfeld about the United States Government's involvement in human trafficking among other issues, the documentary film "American Blackout", a history of United States Government involvement in human trafficking, and her summarized biography.

Does this image of jet contrails look a bit extreme to you? It’s because they aren’t contrails, they are “chemtrails”— aerosols intentionally sprayed into the atmosphere without the public’s consent, and it’s very likely to be happening in the skies over where you live.

This article contains information about the subject of atmospheric chemtrail spraying by making use of video documentaries, timelapse video clips, news reports, audio interviews, and photographs.

Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds is widely known as one of the most officially silenced individuals in modern history, for the amount of information she is blocked from disclosing relating to corruption in the United States Government.

This article details issues including her being blocked under the "State Secrets Privilege" from testifying on behalf of September 11 victims, as well as from disclosing information related to government narcotics and weapons dealing.

Sibel Edmonds is now the Founder and President of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, with over 70 members being from intelligence and law enforcement agencies including the FBI, CIA, DIA, Drug Enforcement Agency, and Department of Homeland Security, with the average years of professional experience of it's members being 21 years.

Alex Jones speaks with Len Horowitz, the author of "Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola— Nature, Accident or Intentional?", discussing issues of the current outbreak of Swine Flu. Horowitz is an international authority in the fields of public health, behavioral science, emerging diseases, and natural healing. Discussed is evidence that the recent flu outbreak was intentionally created for the purpose of profiting drug companies, empowering globalist agendas, forwarding depopulation agendas, and being used as a "smokescreen" to distract the populace from other issues.

Horowitz explains that he was initially suspicious that the situation was not actually as the media is presenting it to be, because of the fact that the characteristics of the flu virus are a new combination of three different flus— the Swine Flu, Avian Flu, and Spanish Flu. He explains that the stock value has skyrocketed for the company Novavax, due to it already producing a vaccine for this new strain, and for a number of reasons the money trail leads to Dr. James Robinson, England's leading engineer of viruses for the vaccine industry. Robinson is an avid promoter of US government funding for lucrative biodenfense and bioengineering contracts. Horowitz explains that essentially on the day the first cases of the outbreak were reported by Mexican officials, an article had been published in the "Journal of Virology" discussing work already being done on a vaccine for treating such a specific disease.

Alex Jones speaks about globalist agendas of transferring authority from individual governments to international bodies such as the UN, and mentions that normal strains of the flu kill tens of thousands of people in the United States every year, and that the deaths resulting from the recently discovered strains are generally being hyped out of proportion by the media for the purpose of forwarding specific agendas.

Horowitz explains that he thinks the reasons behind the hype is to push for mandatory vaccinations that are ultimately associated with depopulation agendas. He says scientists at the US Center for Disease Control are implicated in wrongdoing due to their collaborations with an organization known as Novavax, and explains that a "revolving door" of alliances between government officials and drug industrialists exists which essentially results in genocide for profit. He also explains that additional conspiracy evidence exists when the issue is examined deeper, such as the genetic implications of the vaccines associated with this particular outbreak. Horowitz explains evidence of how in closed door meetings, a rationale was actually given that fewer people would die in the long run if unknowing populations were intentionally seeded with viruses in order to raise the immunity of society as a whole.

Alex Jones mentions that he thinks the current flu is a "hyped psy-op," and the real concern is the vaccines that will be given to the people who are now terrorized by the flu scare. Also spoken about is how the outbreak is being used as a smokescreen to distract the populace from other pressing issues, such as the establishment of the Bank of the World, carbon taxes, treaties to restrict the second amendment, and serious problems with the economy.

Horowitz explains that most of the most serious plagues which humanity is facing today— such as cancer pandemics, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, the auto-immune diseases— are the methods of how globalist controllers and the drug industrialists make money, reduce population sizes, and control the populations.

Alex Jones asks listeners to Goggle the phrase "mixing of flus", and explains that many hundreds of websites will show up about the topic. He speaks about the company Baxter being caught recently mailing weaponized bird flu which was mixed with regular human flu to be given out as vaccines, and he also mentions that the London Telegraph has reported about homeless people dying in Poland as a result of city workers telling as many as 350 that they were getting regular flu shots, but instead they received trails of a bird flu vaccine.

Horowitz explains that the current strain is a "recombinant" flu which has never been seen before in human history. It is a combination of the Swine Flu, Avian Flu, and the Spanish Flu. It is a factor in what he calls a "pathognomic" diagnosis— meaning "slam dunk" evidence that the virus actually came from a laboratory. Horowitz explains other specific evidence of the virus coming from a laboratory as well.

Alex Jones compares the situation to insider trading which happening during the 9/11 attacks, such as "short betting" of the stocks of specific airlines which had a money trail leading back to individuals involved with the CIA.

Horowitz speaks about his past history of being able to accurately predict government involvement in the spread of disease, such as predicting a week beforehand the Anthrax mailings which took place around the time of the 9/11 attacks. He explains how he attempted to warn the FBI, and he also gave radio broadcasts to report the risk because he saw how the situation was unfolding behind the scenes. He explains that he can see the same trends occurring now with the current outbreak.

Horowitz explains the reality of western medicine being largely controlled by the Rockefeller family, through their deciding of who receives most of the major scientific grants, and also heavily influencing the ways doctors are trained in "trauma-based" learning, which results in doctors which are unquestioningly subservient to the medical establishment.