The concept of man-made global warming - that the global temperature is increasing as a result of the green house effect from pollutants like CO2 that come from the industrialization of society - has become widely known. But the basis for such conclusions is yet to be proven and the claim of a scientific consensus by those like Al Gore and Prime Minster Gordon Brown is unequivocally wrong. Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe and Lawrence Solomon of the National Post say the opinion is hardly unanimous, noting thousands of scientists that dissent from such a consensus.

The recent scandal, being dubbed "climategate," is an indicator of the manner in which the climate change subject is being approached by many. After e-mails surfaced between scientists at the University of East Anglia, a leading climate change research institution, conspiring efforts to manipulate public opinion regardless of reality became clear.

The e-mails were between scientists that were behind much of the climate change alarmism that revealed the manner in which data was presented to the public - and in some cases, data that wasn't. According to Daily Mail, if it wasn't for a legal loop-hole, climate scientists could be prosecuted for cherry-picking data, which the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mainly based their 2007 report, and ignoring Freedom of Information Requests. The IPCC subsequently had to apologize for their claim that the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within 25 years.

According to the Daily Mail, on March 1 Professor Phil Jones, the head of the University's "prestigious" climate research unit, admitted that he wasn't forthright with data because "it was not 'standard practice' in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research."

Apart from "climategate," data has continually been deliberately misrepresented or manufactured. Dr. Nils-Axel Morner - Swedish geologist, physicist and former Chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change - dealt a blow to the manmade global warming argument in a Telegraph article by Christopher Booker. Morner said that the sea level is not rising and hasn't risen for the past 50 years, and if there is a rise in the next 50 years, it won't be more than 10 cm.

But that didn't stop Al Gore from winning an Oscar for his ironically titled film "An Inconvenient Truth" that depicted San Francisco and Shanghai half underwater. Morner expressed his dismay over the continued hypothetical propaganda surrounding the issue, of which the media has excessively covered.

Booker commented on the manipulation of data further in an article published in November of 2008 titled "The world has never seen such freezing heat."

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally Dr. James Hansen, whose testimony in '88 to a committee chaired by Al Gore set the whole scare in motion, carried over readings from September and used them in October. In an attempt to divert unwanted attention to the unusual cold temperatures that they didn't report, they then reported that they had found a hot spot over the Arctic.

In his article Booker explains how, at the same time Hansen made the false report, satellite images were showing "Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year."

Booker also cited the fact that in 2007 Hansen was forced to revise published figures for surface temperatures to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not in the 90s, as he claimed, but in the 30s.

For those who may be saying to themselves "any dissenting scientists are bankrolled by the oil companies," apart from the sheer amount of scientists that dissent from the "unanimous" conclusion about climate change, the fact that big oil and auto execs are avid supporters of global warming alarmism, and the agenda that coincides with it, should be enough to refute such arguments.

According to the Wall Street Journal on Oct. 1, 2009 Rex Tillerson, the chief executive of the oil industry titan Exxon, which has continually posted record profits, said, "I firmly believe it is not too late for Congress to consider a carbon tax as the better policy approach for addressing the risks of climate change." This is the same Exxon that has yet to clean up the historical oil spill off the coast of Alaska 20 years later and is uncooperative in "restoration" efforts.

Others argue that the global warming that we have seen develop in the latter half of the 20th century is the result of the cycles of the sun and earth - an argument that notes the fact that ice has been melting for thousands of years, well before any "unsustainable" industrial activity, and has given us the Great Lakes.

Geologist Bob Carter of the Telegraph cites the fact that over the past 11 years there has, in fact, been a cooling. He also notes that a period of warming similar to that of 1970-1998 occurred between 1918-1940, well before the greatest phase of industrialization, which was then also followed by cooling period.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor of Meteorology Dr. Richard S. Lindzen provided the icing on the cake for global warming dissenters this past summer. In a paper, he published what many are calling the nail in the coffin for the global warming debate. Data he's collected by satellite over a 15 year period from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment, concerning heat radiated out into space, confirms that the effect of CO2 and all greenhouse gases on temperature is less than one sixth of what the U.N. says it is - debunking much of their models. "We now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate," he wrote in his peer-reviewed paper.

An overview of the information is provided in an Examiner article by Diane Cotter titled Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT scientist, which is accompanied by other data.

The intention for the climate change agenda might have a far more sinister connotation that extends beyond just a new pyramid, tax scheme.

Thus far "Global Warming" has been vehemently proven to be at best a theory, all the while hinting that the true intention may well be another bail out for big government.

The summit in Copenhagen this past December has reinforced just that, which is being thrust on Americans and the people of the world in a threatening manner, using terror tactics similar to those used to pass the bailout in fall of 2008. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that if agreement is not achieved at Copenhagen this December, the consequential "catastrophe" will be irrevocable.

Policy analyst Christopher Monckton, said at a lecture he gave at Bethel College on Oct. 14, that the treaty would have effectively ceded U.S. national sovereignty to a "Global Government" that would be established under it. The newly established global government would collect trillions in taxes from industrial nations as part of a climate debt, and be allowed to enforce and intervene in sovereign environments.

This government would go over the heads of the individual governments, for example, not allowing undevloped countries to industrialize. It would do all this based on a theory, which now more than ever has enormous holes.

It is a global government that is the true aim; and similar to the economic crisis, the manufactured problem of manmade climate change is just another excuse elites can use to establish just that.

I say elites because it is they who stand to gain the most, or have the most to protect, with such a revolution; and it is the general population that threatens them the most. This is why the powerful elite have gone to such great lengths to support such an agenda, and agendas that coincide with it.

In a Times article titled Eco Barons Lead the Way, Philip Beresford details how the "world's richest tycoons have embraced environmentalism." But environmentalism is a broad term that is not all that bad; it's some of what it encompasses that is.

John Harlow reported in another Times article published in March of 2009 about how some of America's leading billionaires got together to discuss how their wealth could be used for Population Control. Among those who attended were popular figures like Ted Turner, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and David Rockefeller - most of whom already have established themselves in the population control movement. What's most frightening is that they all pass themselves off as good humanitarians.

In 2006 Buffet gave over $40 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Ted Turner has advocated a "global one child policy," like China's, in the name of global warming and has also donated billions to the population control agenda. Turner also has five children and is the largest landowner in the US. Just this past December, Turner was joined by Diane Francis who, in her editorial for the Canadian Financial Post, called for just that.

At the Technology, Entertainment and Design (TED) Conference on Feb. 12, regarding the global population level, after connecting it to global warming, Gates said "if we do a good job on vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive services we could lower that."

All the while, much of the media is littered with propaganda like that which appeared in a popular UK women's magazine Love It, with an article that's title says it all: "Young, Single, and Sterilized." Billions is spent pushing abortions, yet not nearly as much money and effort is put toward education, especially education about the complications abortions can create, like cancer for example.

But this whole concept of depopulating the earth to save it and humanity, really takes root in the 60s and 70s, and involves taking draconian measures to do so. In memorandum 200 to the National Security Council, Henry Kissinger, German born American diplomat, former Secretary of State under Nixon and long time proponent of a "New World Order," said that "depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the third world."

The memorandum also states "Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now." The document continues, "Would food be considered an instrument of national power? ... Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can't/won't control their population growth?"

He also prepared a depopulation manifesto for President Jimmy Carter called "Global 2000," which also detailed using food as a weapon to depopulate the world. Currently, we are doing just that in Somalia which, according to Black Agenda Report, has created "the worst humanitarian crisis in Africa... worse than Darfur," starving millions.

The extent to which many elite are advocating population reduction is startling. Some believe that a reduction by 80 percent to as far as 95 percent, or 250-300 million people, would be ideal, as wealthy media mogul Ted Turner has said back in 1996 in an interview with Audubon magazine. In 2005 Turner was honored by the U.N. for his work advocating sustainable development when he was presented with the Alan Cranston Peace Award.

In 1991 James Costeau, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Courrier said, "In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it."

The emphasis on global warming in the media, in schools and in politics that we see today is part of a "sustainable development" program launched back in the early 90s under the U.N. Agenda 21 protocols that came out of the U.N. meeting in Rio de Janeiro, which really picked up the phony environmentalist movement.

Agenda 21 can be described as a 40-chapter document to "control the world" that is based entirely on elitist social control mechanisms, under the guise of sustainable development. Sustainable development is the philosophy that humanity's development needs to be controlled to a point that the earth can sustain; a philosophy that has been around for some time now and has clearly led to some radical concepts, to say the least.

One year after George H.W. Bush signed the U.N. charter into "soft-law," President Bill Clinton established the President's Council on Sustainable Development for the purpose of implementing Agenda 21 in the U.S. by executive order. Now we have UNESCO declaring 2005-2015 the decade of education for sustainable development.

The sustainable development philosophy takes root in the eugenics movement of the 20th century. In the book Ecoscience, to "save the earth" co-author John Holdren, President Obama's Science Advisor, entertained methods to achieve "sustainability" through methods such as compulsory sterilization via the water and food supply, licenses to have children, and the "de-development" of developed countries like the U.S.

Holdren's office has issued a public statement denying such claims; however the truth is in black and white and can be found online. Zombietime.com published an essay that provides scans and photos, taken directly from the book, of the quotations in question.

Other prominent scientists have proposed similar frightening ideas, scientists like NASA's James Hansen who endorsed the eco-fascist book Times Up by Keith Farnish, which calls for cities to be razed to the ground, industrial civilization to be destroyed, and genocidal population reduction measures be taken in the name of global warming. Hansen essentially said Farnish was correct in calling for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism by blowing up dams and demolishing cities. "People will die in huge numbers when civilization collapses," Farnish writes.

On a similar note, during her visit to New Delhi, India, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted that "it's rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning." Clinton also commented on her enormous admiration for Margaret Sanger and her "vision" while accepting the Margaret Sanger Award. Clinton said that Sanger's "work here in the United States and across the globe is not done." Sanger was the founder of the Birth Control League that became Planned Parenthood who advocated birth control and family planning more as part of an elitist, eugenics agenda.

In fact Kissinger makes clear the essential role of abortion in "sustainable development" in the NSC memo mentioned earlier. Abortion has had its strongest effect here in the US, where many feel that there is a modern-day genocide of a whole generation underway.

The attempts to create, as it says in the Agenda 21 document, "a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced, a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources" combined with recent legislation are telling of the true objectives of the global warming and sustainable development agenda.

Behind the global warming agenda is also an attempt to limit the individual to an extent that resembles slavery and neo-feudalism or neo-serfdom.

At a press conference for the International Committee for Local Environmental Initiatives, which helps the implementation of Agenda 21 in local communities throughout the country, Vice Chairman Harvey Ruvin represented the startling sustainable development mentality quite clearly, and he did so without a second thought.

Responding to a question concerning the clashes of individual constitutional rights, particularly private property, with Agenda 21, Ruvin Said, "Individual rights must take a back seat to the collective."

Agenda 21 draws forth conclusions that education is a threat to sustainability by the reasoning that "higher incomes are directly related to higher education and thus have a greater propensity to consume," as explained on the Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit website under the "Education: Promise and Paradox" section.

At a Bilderberg meeting in June of 1991 in Baden, Germany, David Rockefeller said, "The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the auto determination practiced in past centuries." And that is what the global warming agenda, and agendas like it, are really about - a global government of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite.

Two hundred years ago it was thought that "overpopulation" was an immediate threat, yet time proved that society is both the threat and savior when it comes to the starving and food production. The real crisis or threat to humanity really is itself, and I am not referring to the man-made global warming theory. The crisis is a moral one, and the threat the extreme polarizations that have bred extreme ideologies.