LaRouchePAC Live: EIR Press Conference: 'Climate Change Scare is Population Reduction, Not Science'

September 22, 2015

EIR News Conference: ‘Climate Change Scare is Population Reduction, Not Science’

Join us for a live press conference announcing the release of Executive Intelligence Review magazine's latest special report, 'Climate Change Scare is Population Reduction, Not Science', Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 11:00 AM eastern. This report is being released on the eve of the U.N. General Assembly in New York and Pope Francis' visit to the United States, both occasions where the agenda of reducing the world's population in the name of 'saving the environment' is in full swing. This report gets right to the core of the 'climate change' fraud: population reduction. Tune in live Tuesday at 11 AM eastern.

Speakers: Benjamin Deniston, of the LaRouche PAC Science Team; and Thomas Wysmuller, of "The Right Climate Stuff," a NASA scientist, and meteorologist; LaRouche PAC's Dennis Speed moderated the proceedings.

DENNIS SPEED: I want to welcome everyone to today's press conference on "'Global Warming' Scare Is Population Reduction, Not Science." This is an EIR Special Report, which has been issued, and is being premiered here today, in the context of an intervention that we intend into the United Nations. This intervention is happening at an auspicious moment, an important moment, in that we may see, in this session of the United Nations, a new movement for peace, a new movement that in particular rejects the drive toward war, and in fact, thermonuclear war, which has been characteristic of our planet, in particular, over the past 16 years.

EIR minces no words when we refer to the fact that the last two American administrations, the Obama administration, and the Bush-Cheney administration before, have put the world on a path, which if not reversed, would lead to the extinction of the human species. The report, "'Global Warming' Scare Is Population Reduction, Not Science," will be discussed in detail by Ben Deniston, of the Basement Team, who is also a co-author of the report, and will be taking many questions.

But to start us off, I want to just say a couple of things about the outlook. Executive Intelligence Review has written many, many reports over the years, and its founder, Lyndon LaRouche, has continually made the point that there are no limits to growth, that the world needs more people, and that the only efficient way to ensure the development of the human race is to implement his conceptions of potential relative population-density, and the conceptions that are also characteristic of Alexander Hamilton's American System. The American Presidency, that Hamilton and Washington founded, always started from the premise
of growth and development, and that this was also, of course, in its own way, reiterated by Pope Paul VI in his 1967 Encyclical, Populorum Progressio, in which he said that, "The new name for peace is development."

So this idea of peace and development has always been at the core of what Executive Intelligence Review has spoken about. Some years ago, Executive Intelligence Review published a work by Sergei Glazyev, of Russia. It was called, Genocide: Russia and the New World Order. Mr. Glazyev is a full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He's been in that since 2008. He was a minister in the Duma. He is a very close associate of Vladimir Putin's. He ran for President of Russia in 2004.

In his book, under what he called "Definitions," he said, "Let us recall that in 1954, our country adhered to the United Nations' International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide. According to this Convention, genocide is defined as a crime committed, 'with intent to destroy in whole, or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, as such.' The Convention emphasizes that genocide by no means has to entail the use of physical violence or, the conduct of war. Among the instruments of the crime the Convention identifies in particular, 'Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole, or in part.'

"Although the definition of genocide includes the element of intent, that is deliberate commission of the crime against a large group of the population, in practice the policy of genocide is not always fully conscious on the part of those who perpetrate it. Far less, is it openly proclaimed. It may be cloaked within quite respectable slogans about reforms for the good of society, to obtain freedom and social justice. Many de facto parties to the crimes may, 'Not notice the real consequences of their actions, genuinely believing that they are heroes and benefactors of mankind.'"

On such a full sea are we now afloat in the case of the recent Papal Encyclical, Laudato Si', and in specific, one of the advisers to that Papal Encyclical, a man by the name of Schellnhuber. I am going to refer here to our report, and the reason I want to do that is just so the people who are here, and also those who are seeing this broadcast, have a sense of what it is we've done with this report, and why we believe that it's of utmost importance that people have copies of it, and refer to it.

I want to just say one thing more, as I want to move to Mr. Schellnhuber here for a moment. There's a couple things that I just want to point out, and one of the authors of the report, Helga LaRouche, on page 6, states that, "Already in 2004, Schellnhuber had been designated by Queen Elizabeth II, together with Sir David King, climate adviser to the British Government and Monarchy, to be sent on a mission to the United States to convince President George W. Bush on anthropogenic climate change. This operation must have far exceeded the bounds which Bush considered acceptable, because he later complained to Tony Blair about it. Also in 2004, Queen Elizabeth traveled to Berlin, to open the German-British Climate Conference, and there granted Schellnhuber, the rank of Commander of the British Empire, as thanks to his services. The fact that CBE Schellnhuber, has gotten his program accepted in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, raises the most serious questions as to how this was possible.

"The most recent Encyclical of Pope Francis, in which anthropogenic climate change is presented as scientifically certain fact, represents a complete break with the view of mankind in the Augustinian Tradition of the Catholic Church, and with the Encyclicals since Pope Leo XIII. Schellnhuber was one of the three spokesmen who presented the new Encyclical on June 18th in Rome."

What I want to do is simply take a couple of minutes to say something about the relationship between various members of the British Royal Family, various members of Anglo-American Intelligence, and the issue of climate change, and Population Control. First, I want to refer to something, I think some people are aware of, but it's of importance, which is Sir Julian Huxley, who was the first head of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). When he launched that agency at the United Nations, in 1946, he said, among other things,

"Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenics policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake, so that much that now is unthinkable, may at least become thinkable."

I would suggest to you that what he is referring to, which was then unthinkable, was the holocaust that had occurred in Europe, largely carried out by the Nazis and expressed and exemplified by the concentration camp system, that subsequent to that process in the 1940s, that the eugenics movement was in fact resurrected, so to speak, in the form of the ecology movement.

I think that the other relevant person to refer to here is Prince Philip, who was a co-founder with Sir Julian Huxley, of the World Wildlife Fund. There are many quotes one could take from Philip. I really don't want to take a lot of time, so I just want to take this one. This is from a 1981 interview with People magazine, where he says, "I was in Sri Lanka recently, where a United Nations project, set out in the late 1940s to eradicate malaria, it's an island, and it was therefore possible to destroy the mosquito carrying the disease. What people didn't realize was that malaria was actually controlling the growth of the population. The consequence was that within about twenty years the population doubled. Now they've got to find something for all those people to do, and some way to feed them. Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival."

Now finally, his infamous quote from 1988, "In the event I am re-born, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve the problem of over-population."

So that's the introduction I'd like to make. I have a few things to say about Executive Intelligence Review's view of this matter. We completely reject the idea that human beings are pollutants. We reject the idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. We'd rather embrace the conception, which was recently echoed actually a year ago, at the United Nations by Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, that the human population, such as the youth population of India, is the source of wealth.

Further, if we look at our space program and our galactic programs, that are now beginning to become much more familiar to Americans and others, because of the recent New Horizons mission to Pluto. As we look at other of these areas, what we see is that, so far, the only form of life that we know of that is conscious is human life. There is an extraterrestrial imperative, as the scientist Krafft Ehricke argued, that man, and man's creative capacities, are required to populate, to investigate, to discover the laws of the Universe, and it is that which dictates that the world requires more people.

Now, many people can give various kinds of estimates and statistical proofs of the fact that the entire human race, for example, can fit in the area of the states of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, so forth. The idea that the world is overpopulated has been refuted many, many times. The issue of human resources, and the creative capability of mankind to invent resources, is something that the economist, Lyndon LaRouche, was relatively unique in establishing scientific basis of.

And much of the work that our report basically documents—matter of fact, all of the work that it documents—is really the product of his unique contribution to economics and science. To go through that and to give the actual detailed refutation of the apparent premise upon which this genocide is about to be committed, that is the apparent premise that global warming is real in any way, which we, of course, do not accept; but in order to go through that, and to refute that, I want to present Ben, who will go through with you his research, and that section of our report.

BENJAMIN DENISTON: My name is Benjamin Deniston. I wrote some sections of this report. I'm just going to give an overview of a few elements of the report. A lot of the details you can find in the report itself, but I want to just kind of give a flavor of what we're discussing here today with this claim of a man-made climate catastrophe coming. Now I think it's important just to start by clarifying the terms that are used, and the reality of the issue from some media publications right before this event. If you read the literal statements of these headlines, it's saying a certain specific thing. It's saying, "Obama Condemns Climate Change Deniers." "Bad News For Climate Change Deniers." "Climate Denier Group Likens Pope Climate Change Talk To Paganism."

Now this is a rather terrible misrepresentation of some of the scientific criticism that's being put forward, because many of the people opposing what's being pushed right now as a response to a supposed climate catastrophe, is not based on denying the existence of climate change. And it's not based on the idea of denying the existence of the climate itself, which some of these headlines seem to imply, by the way they phrase the wording here. What is being addressed here is something rather different. It's one thing to recognize climate change exists. We recognize that climate changes. We recognize human beings have been emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide. We recognize carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that can have an effect on the climate. Those are pretty well-established facts.

It is another issue to claim that the human release of greenhouse gases is the predominant cause of the increase in temperature of the past century. It is another statement to say the continued release of CO2 will cause catastrophic effects for the planet, and then there's another thing to say, it will be best for human society to take drastic action to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions. So this is what we're taking issue with. We're not saying, CO2 isn't potentially a small effect on the climate. What we're taking issue with is the claim that human CO2 emissions are having catastrophic effects that require dramatic action, to have major interventions to change our mode of existence to deal with. That's what's being addressed here.

Now, just to put this up front, there is often talk of a quote/unquote "consensus" in the scientific community over the issue of climate change. And this is a website called The Consensus Project. It's based on a 2013 study, which claimed to show that there's a 97% consensus in the scientific community, in the climate community, over the issue of climate change.

Now again, we have this distinction I just made, comes back up here, because this is often presented, as evidence presented by the President of the United States, for example, presented of evidence saying that the majority of scientists agree, not just with the existence of climate change, not just with the existence of humans having an effect, but the claim that humans are causing catastrophic effects, that need to be dealt with immediately.

Now other scientists have actually looked at the studies that were cited in this report, this report that claimed the 97% consensus. Other people have gone back and reviewed what works were supposedly going into that consensus. And I've cited the peer-reviewed published paper on the subject here in the slide. You can also go to this website called Watts Up With That, I have the URL there, and they've posted a nice list, of 97 articles refuting this supposed consensus. But what was found when people looked back at this paper, was they reviewed almost 12,000 climate papers; only 41 of those 12,000 climate papers explicitly agreed with the statement, that man is causing most of the warming since 1950. So the consensus was in the 97% consensus is agreeing that humans are emitting CO2 and CO2 has some effect on the climate. That's not a controversial claim. That was what most of these papers agreed to. What was not a consensus, by any means, in these academic studies, was the claim that humans are causing most of the warming. Far less than 1% of the papers explicitly made a statement on that; and that we're having such an effect, that we need to take dramatic actions to reduce CO2 emissions in the very short term. Again, there is more details in the report, I just want to put this out here to alleviate some of the misinformation that's been presented, as if there's a complete consensus on the issue of this being an emergency, we have to deal with immediately. That is not the case.

With this stated, I just want to take a few minutes to go over the issue of the relation between carbon dioxide and temperature. Again this is presented in more detail in the report. But we're often presented with the argument that carbon dioxide is a major driver of climate, that the climate is incredibly responsive, or sensitive, to changes in CO2 levels; and it is the case over the past century, we've seen general increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere; and we've seen a general increase in temperature since around the 1950s, 1960s, up to the turn of the century.

Since the late '90s we've had a flat-line in global temperature. These are two different assessments of satellite measurements of global atmospheric temperature over the past 18-plus years, and they show that the global temperature on average has not been increasing, it's flat-lined; some people refer to this as a pause, or a hiatus, in global warming. And this is one of a number of pieces of evidence that points very clearly to the reality that the atmospheric system, the climate system, the global temperature, is not highly sensitive, or highly responsive to CO2 emissions. Over the past 20 years we've been putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than we ever have before, and we're not seeing a warming trend in the atmosphere as a response.

I just want to show this as another presentation of this issue, because Al Gore had used this graphic in his science-fiction video, "An Inconvenient Truth," which showed a correlation between CO2 and temperature for the past half-million years, the past 600,000 years, and as evidence that the temperature is highly sensitive to CO2, that CO2 itself is a major driver of what the global climate, the global temperature does. And as you can see in the top graphic, yes, it's clear that there's a correlation between CO2 and temperature. However, what Al Gore did not say, and what many of the alarmists have not said, and will not admit, unless pressed on the issue, is that a number of studies have shown very clearly that the CO2 changes for this entire period come after the changes in temperature. So this is not at all evidence that changes in CO2 levels drive temperature changes or climate changes, but quite the opposite.

It's showing us that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere tend to respond to a change in climate, which is being changed by other factors.

If you go back further, this is going back a very long time period, the past half-billion years, the past 500 million years, and these are attempts to get some type of estimate of temperature changes and CO2 changes over this time period. And again, we do not see a clear causal correlation. We see periods when CO2 is increasing and temperature is decreasing, for tens of millions of years.

Here is another, coming back to the more recent period. So again, these are lines of evidence showing us that we don't have any clear proof that the atmosphere is as sensitive or as responsive to CO2 levels as we're supposedly being led to believe. Returning to the more recent period, this is a comparison that's been made with the predictions by climate models for what they would forecast global temperature to be doing, under the influence of rising CO2 levels compared with, again, these measurements from satellite instrumentation of the global average temperature. So again, we're seeing a very large deviation now, between what the actual temperature is doing and what is being claimed it should do, under the false assumption, the false belief, that the atmospheric system is highly sensitive, or highly responsive, to CO2 levels.

Here's another interesting graphic, I just want to put again in this context. This is a plot of various academic papers, which have published on the subject of how sensitive is the atmosphere to changes in CO2 levels? And the bottom axis, this time we're going from around 2000 to 2015, and the vertical axis shows us basically how much would we believe the temperature should change, if the CO2 levels doubled? As we can see, even in the climate community, even in the climate literature, we're seeing a dramatic reduction in the assessment of how sensitive the climate is to CO2 levels.

I want to just present this, because all this comes together in painting a very clear picture that, again, we recognize CO2 levels are increasing. We recognize CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can have some effect on the atmosphere. But then to make the leap to say that what we know to be the coming human emissions of CO2 will cause some catastrophic activity,—sea-level rise, increased storms, major temperature increase, droughts, all these things you see on the news headlines, —the connection between human CO2 emissions and these extreme, catastrophic statements, is not there. It's not in the scientific consensus; it's not in what's been scientifically demonstrated. It may exist in some climate models, where it exists because it was put in as an assumption from the start. But the actual evidence is not showing us that the climate is so incredibly sensitive to CO2 emissions, that we should be taking dramatic actions in lowering CO2 emissions, stopping using coal, stopping using gasoline, activities which will have, as Dennis discussed in the opening, serious catastrophic consequences on the livelihood, the well-being, the economic viability of populations and nations around the world.

So that's what I wanted to just present, to open up here. And do you want to introduce Tom? And then we're going to have our next speaker.

SPEED: Our next speaker is Tom Wysmuller. He's a trained meteorologist at NYU, worked as NASA for five years. He works is a group of former NASA employees, astronauts and others. They call themselves the Right Climate Stuff Club. So, Tom.

TOM WYSMULLER: All right, well, actually we're a group mainly centered at the Johnson Space Center...[technical interruption]

What you're going to be seeing here is some slides that are a sub-set of a much larger presentation that I'll be giving at the 10th Annual Water Conference that's going to be held in Bulgaria in a couple of weeks. I think if you google "water conference bulgaria", you'll find it.

Anyway, what you are seeing here is what many people are saying is going to be the future for New York City. Turns out that this is a cover of a book by Heidi Cullen, and the fact is, this isn't going to happen in anybody's lifetime, at all. It's a scare. It makes people get anxious about climate change and CO2. It is not the future for New York City.

What you're seeing on this graphic is the great ice sheet that covered north America, sometimes one and two miles thick during the last 100,000 years, but it started melting around 18,000 years ago. Right here you see a lake. This is not the Great Salt Lake in Utah. This is Lake Bonneville. Lake Bonneville was held in place by an ice dam, or an alluvial fan, but it broke open, and for about a year, it literally flooded the oceans with the water that was coming out of that ice sheet as it melted.

You're looking here at the sea-level history. And you notice right here about 18,000 years ago, sea levels started rising, as that ice sheet melted. So during this period, from the last inter-glacial, down to 8,000 years that ice sheet was building up, accumulating more and more snow and ice. Long Island, which is right around here, is the terminal moraine, or end point of that last glacier. What happened is that when the glacier was forms, it moves south. It doesn't move like a snowplow. It doesn't push things in front of it. What it does, it may encapsulate a rock in northern Quebec, and then as the ice sheet moves south, that rock gets transported, and at the southern end, it terminates, and the ice melts, and leaves the rock.

So if you are familiar with the Long Island area, the southern part of Long Island is called an out-wash plane. It is flat as a pancake. It's great to build airports; that's where JFK is built. And the beaches tend to be the sand that's left over from what was dragged. The northern part of Long Island is lumpy. You go by places like Huntington, you have 200-foot hills, which are basically the rubble that was left. Then the ice sheet retreated, and as it retreated it melted, and filled the oceans, and that's what you are seeing here.

The next slide will have a little bit more detail. Between the arrows is what I call the great meltwater spike, or pulse. Here is where Lake Bonneville dumped its contents over a year into the Snake River, and then eventually into the Columbia River. And you see a sharp upwards spike. So here the ice starts melting. Spike here, a couple of other spikes. And then finally, about 8,000 years ago, the sea level rise kind of flattens out. Now, why does it flatten out? Maybe because all the ice is gone! The great ice sheet has already melted. So sea level is flat. And it is flat basically until this day.

Now you notice there is still a slight upward rise, and here is the key. Global warming, in the sense of oceans getting warmer, is real. The oceans are accumulating heat, and the thermal expansion, without more ice coming into the ocean, allows the ocean to slightly rise. And you'll see that fairly clearly in a few more slides. Now, unfortunately, here are the scare tactics. The IPCC has sea-level rise pathways; they're called representative concentration pathways, and they're all dependent on the amount of CO2 that gets put into the air. So within this century, they're expecting a 1 meter sea-level rise with current or expected emissions of CO2. The other targets are reductions, but you notice they're all rising.

Well, our administration decided to go one better. The National Climate Assessment said, "Nah, the IPCC is wrong. We're going to go 2 meters up!" Basically 6.6 feet. Again, here's where we are, flat, and even this line here is double the increase of the last century, that we've experienced. And again, the pathways are different, depending on the CO2 emissions.

Now we're going to see there's not a lot of linkage there. When, it turns out, Jim Hansen was talking to a reporter in 1988, standing in his office; and the reporter says, "What are you expect to see in the next 50 years, or so?" And Jim Hansen looks out the window and says, "You're going to see a lot more traffic." And the reporter said, "Well, how come?" He said, "Well, you see the West Side Highway [in Manhattan], which is on the other side of that road, is going to be flooded. You're going to have sea-level rise to such an extent, that all of the traffic is going to be spilled over, into the city streets. And there will be other
things going wrong too." I won't go over the whole article.

Well, it turned out—and by the way, this was predicated on a doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 levels; well, CO2 levels are about half-way there now, from when Jim Hansen was talking, about maybe 40%. The actual sea-level rise along the West Side Highway is not 10 feet, which would have inundated it, like he said. It's 1 inch. So, 1 inch, so we have 25 more years for his prediction to come true, to get the other 9 feet, 11 inches. It's not going to happen, folks.

Originally they had a linear relationship of the sea-level rise. Well, Jim Hansen got real smart; he's a good mathematician, and he figured, "Uh-oh, this is not working," so he created this exponential curve in 2007, which basically tracks exactly what's happening now! We are really no sea-level rise, and then he expects in the last 20 years for it to sky-rocket for another 15 feet, or 16 feet. That's not going to happen either, folks.

Here are some local effects in New York City. The press comes to New York; you notice in New York City, in the Battery, you have a steady rise in sea-level. And the same with Boston, particularly after 1961, which is right here. Boston kind of shoots up. Now, what's happened in Boston? They have 19 new skyscrapers, built in Boston, since 1960, over what's called frangible bedrock. So basically, Boston is being pressed down by the buildings; Boston is sinking, and they're saying, "Gee, look at that. We have accelerating sea-level in Boston."

New York is a little bit different. New York has a very steady rise, but it is about double the world sea-level rise. Why? Look outside the window here. You got all these skyscrapers, all these buildings. They're on bedrock, but that bedrock rests on something called the asthenosphere, which is a layer between magma, that will create volcanoes,—we don't have any of those here,—but it basically allows this bedrock, which we are putting these huge buildings on, to press down, slowly but surely. So we experience sea-level rise.

I've got Port Jeff [Port Jefferson, Long Island] here: Port Jeff is in the same ocean, and this is a subset of this particular graphic, and Port Jeff really is not showing very much sea-level rise at all. And the same thing with Boston and Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Portsmouth is about 60 miles north of Boston. Sea level is fairly flat in the same period, that Boston is accelerating, because Portsmouth doesn't have any skyscrapers.

If you go to Portland, Maine, the tide gauge in Portland, Maine, today, registers exactly what it registered in 1947. No sea-level rise. Now, in truth, there's been a slight rise. In 1947, we're taking one of the higher points, not the highest point; and the current happened to be fairly low, but the old-timers in Maine just say, "The sea-level's not going up," and they're right! And Portland, Maine, is an area which is tectonically inert, meaning it is neither rising nor

I'm going to be showing you a slide about a tectonically inert place. This is actually the good way to look at it. This is Axel Mörner, a brilliant oceanographer from Scandinavia. And what Mörner did, he takes the areas which are getting uplifted, and he takes the areas that are experiencing subsidence; obviously in the areas that are sinking, they are noting a sea-level rise, and the places that are rising, there's not that many of them, but there are some in Alaska and the West Coast, the sea level is not rising, it's actually falling. The actual statistic you want to look for is in the middle. It's the ones that are not rising, not falling, and the rise is quite gradual, and mainly due to thermal expansion of the oceans. There is some glacial meltwater coming in, but it is very minimal. Again, the great Laurentide Glacier has long gone. And by the way, I can give you citations to the paper that this shows up in, so you can get a really good clean graphic. OK? For the people in the press who keep on taking the pictures of it. [laughter]

Here is a graphic taken from the National Climate Assessment, and it shows CO2 going up from 1880, into the present. The graphic has a tiny little nitpick mistakes in here, because we are actually in this flat-line area now. The British call it a stand-still, as far as temperature goes. But, be as it may, this is still pretty accurate. Now, notice down here, temperature is going down, as CO2 goes up. So this is only correlated for two-thirds of its entire term. And this is since the Industrial Revolution, we humans have put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and nobody is really going on a different path with that; I think we kind of agree on it. But the impact is not quite what you look at. You have some temperature drops here also, CO2 is going up. Here you have decent correlation, but correlation is not causation, and that's the key.

So let's say this is, I call this is a subset. Why? Because I'm going to go back now 2,000 years, and the green line is CO2 for the last 2,000 years. Under this little black arrow is the subset that you saw before. Right? So you can see, there is a similarity in that little subset. So here you have CO2 tracking straight as an arrow: Medieval warm period, temperatures sky-rocket; the Little Ice Age, they plummet. CO2 and temperature are just not linked.

Here, we get lucky, because we're putting in CO2 into the air, as temperatures are rising. We didn't have that happen here. Temperatures rose here, CO2 didn't rise. The linkage between CO2 is, in this case, less than 4.5% correlated. That is not one driving the other, by any stretch of anybody's imagination!

Here is your sea level now; that was temperature, you notice. This is seal level: Again, seal level relatively flat, just slightly rising because of thermal expansion, and some more glacial melt. This is CO2. Now this is the Keeling Curve. It varies. You see these little spiky things? They go up and down like a sawtooth. The Keeling Curve is mainly Northern Hemisphere-oriented. It's on Hawaii. It's in the Scripps Howard Institute. It's in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, but the effects of CO2 they're feeling are Northern Hemisphere. And you notice, in April, all of a sudden, CO2 drops! It drops like a rock. And it drops because the plants are
sucking in CO2. They are growing. The trees are getting leaves on them again. In October, the leaves fall. It's harvest time and then sea level rises. How is sea level rising? Mainly through oceanic out-gassing; I'm going to get into that in a second.

But a couple of things I want to point out in the Keeling Curve. Number one, there are some places where CO2 actually drops. Right here, a three-year drop. This happens to coincide with the giant volcano Agung in Indonesia, which erupted, and basically blanketed the upper stratosphere with ash, dust, preventing sunlight from coming in, hitting the ocean, serving as nuclei for water vapor to form and create clouds, which again would reflect energy coming in.

So the oceans didn't warm that much, and CO2 flat-lined, or actually dropped. So again, oceanic out-gassing is that factor.

Up here again, Pinatubo in the Philippines did the same thing, didn't quite drop CO2, but came pretty close. And by the way, once the volcanic ash settles out of the atmosphere, everything's back to normal, CO2 continues rising.

Here is Agung. That's a picture of it, and here you can see the drop. Now I'm going to use this little subset, because I'm going to be talking about the increase from year to year in CO2. You notice here again, this is April, then you have September, October, and then you have a slightly higher area. And again, that is the increase, the annual increase in CO2. And it turns out to be about 1.5%. Now let's see how that works.

This is a fairly complicated graphic, and want to walk through it slowly, so you understand what's going on here. This is from the IPCC report, and it goes over the sources for greenhouse gasses. And I'm going to concentrate on carbon dioxide, because that is the largest contributor, even though methane is about 20 to 23 times as much heat trapping, its effect is quite minimal. And you have natural sources, and again, this is mainly out-gassing from the oceans. As the oceans warm, they kick out the heavier CO2 molecules that are dissolved in them, and they enter the atmosphere.

Humans do pretty well here. They get 23 million metric tons of CO2. The total is 793 million, and the absorption at the end of the year, is 781. So what's left? The annual increase is 11.7—that's it. And most of it is probably due to humans. Now, I'm saying most, not all; because as the oceans warm, they are going to be kicking out more CO2. And since the oceans, except for the Southern Ocean, are all still warming, you have that effect.

I'm going to go back, looking again on top, natural, 97% of all emissions of CO2 come from nature. And by the way, plants exhale CO2 at night. In humans, 3%; the total is 100%, and re-absorption is 98.5%. And this graphic here shows 1.5% is what's left over. The average over the years of the Keeling Curve, is about 1.49%, since they started taking it in Hawaii.

Now let's see what the effect is. I've tried to do it graphically here. So here you see, the bottom here, and you have CO2 going up in the Fall. April comes, and then the net increase is this thin blue line you see right here. So you have 11 billion metric tons increase in a year; 793 [million] is the difference. And again I can go back here. Here is your 11 billion, and your 793, which is the total.

Let's try this one now. The biggest reduction plans that we can possibly hope for, as a result of the Paris talks, are a 400 million metric ton reduction in CO2. That's significant; I'm not going to deny it. However, the 11 billion is the increase that you saw from the last graphic; the 400 million metric doesn't even fit within this thin line. It is that minuscule.

The point I'm trying to make is that the reduction plans that we're hoping for CO2 are almost not measurable.

And here is the key graphic: In the last 140 years, since 1860, we have increased CO2 by 38%, and that's that last graphic that we saw from the National Climate Assessment—I go back here a couple. So since 1880 here, we've gone up 38% in CO2. We really have increased it. All right.

This graphic here is from Wismar, Germany. Do you see any acceleration, of sea-level rise as a result of that 38% increase? The acceleration due to that 38% is zero. Now why did I pick Wismar, Germany? Wismar sits on the Mecklenburg Bend, in the Baltic Sea. It is kind of like halfway between Norway and Sweden, and the Netherlands. Now Norway is rising, because the ice sheet, when it melted took lots of weight off of Norway and Sweden, and Norway and Sweden are actually rising. So someone in Norway is saying, "Hey, sea levels are falling!" No, their land is actually going up. On the other side, you have Holland, and Belgium.

Holland and Belgium, the land is sinking. It's like a see-saw. Norway goes up, Holland goes down. Wismar, Germany is in between the two of them: It is tectonically inert, it neither rises nor falls.

So a really good example of what real sea level rise is, and it's due mainly to oceanic warming. And it is straight and totally unaffected by the CO2 that's coming into the air. Now if it is unaffected on the way up, that little minuscule reduction that we're talking about, the 400 million metric tons, is not even going to be detectable, in the noise of the sea level. The sea level is basically unaffected by CO2.

If 38% increase can't make the sea level accelerate up, any tiny reduction that we make cannot affect it on the way down.

So, that is my conclusion. Wish I could do more stuff for you guys. So here's the final slide: "Can the Paris Proposals To Reduce CO2 Have Any Effect on
Sea-Level Rise?" And the answer is: We don't even have an instrument that could measure it, on its effect on sea level—it doesn't exist. It's that inconsequential.

So why would you want to spend billions of dollars to reduce CO2 by the 400 million metric tons, if you're not going to have any effect on sea level? What you could do with that money,—and here's where I am in league with these guys: What you could do with that money, is electrify Africa. Now what would happen if you electrify Africa? You would take people who are sending their kids out, into the forest there to gather the firewood for four or five hours a day, so they can boil water in their huts, so they cannot get river blindness by drinking the water. And these people are spending their resources in that way. If we electrify Africa, those kids could be in school. They could be discovering cures for cancer. They could be doing great things for humanity!

And what we're doing is, we're saying, "We don't want more CO2. We don't want more 'carbon pollution.'" It is a ruse, it is fatal for the world, because it will drive us back into the Stone Age, if it goes to its natural conclusion.

So if CO2 is not affected by the oceans, the oceans have no change, don't spend the money trying to do that: Spend it where it counts.

I have one more thing. I'm part of the NASA TRCS Group; TRCS stands for "The Right Climate Stuff." We originated in Houston. We got together a couple years ago. We wrote a couple letters complaining to the administrator of the agency, that they were focusing on the wrong things, as you can see here.

We at the TRCS group want to make ourselves available, to any politician, any political party, and we will try to educate them on the real climate, and what's going on. This is not partisan: If a Democrat comes, or a Republican comes, they are going to get the same answers, because we're going to give them data, is what you see there. And those facts are available, and you can contact either myself, [email protected] or [email protected] And the two of us will then re-direct any questions to members of our group. We've got about 40 or 50 people now, who are in our group. It's a public service. We want to make sure you have the facts.

And those of you in the press here, who want to follow me to Bulgaria, I'll be giving a much larger presentation with some of these slides, when I get to Bulgaria at the 10th Annual Water Conference; it's the last big water conference before Paris. And I hope that this message, gets through to the people who are going to be going to Paris. And instead of spending $1,000 a night in hotel rooms and eating in the luxury restaurants, they could do something for the world, by diverting resources towards things like the electrification of Africa, and things like that. Thank you.

SPEED: OK, so we're going to go with the questions. Several people came in after we had begun. So I just want to say one thing, to give sort of an orientation for you, of what we were saying. Our report is called, "`Global Warming' Scare Is Population Reduction, Not Science." And specifically, I'd like to just refer to something.

At the Copenhagen Summit of 2009, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, a Commander of the British Empire, who also was the head of the German Government Advisory Council on Climate Change, argued at that conference that the carrying capacity of human population for the globe was 1 billion, not 7 billion. He then, of course, left it open as to what exactly conclusion one was supposed to draw from that. He is one of the three presenters of the Encyclical that the Pope gave, Laudato Si'. He is an adviser to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

And what we've been concerned about is, has the Vatican, for example, been induced to adopt a policy of population reduction, under the guise of advocating stewardship of the Earth, for example, or these other sorts of things.

It's not the Vatican alone. The idea here is that this entire process around so-called global warming, is a form of re-introducing eugenics, under the guise of ecology, and it has been the deliberate policy of founding members of the United Nations, including Sir Julian Huxley, and others; and we believe that Mr. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, and others, are prosecuting this idea to people all over the world, as a way of advocating, in another way, population reductions that would be only capable through authoritarian and in fact, fascist forms of government.

I just wanted to make that statement because I think it's important just for the several people who came in.

So, in any case, the floor is open for questions to any of the speakers.

Q1: Thank you very much for the invitation, sorry I had to be late; but I am here and I read the information before. I was working in Africa in the year before; I am now working in United Nations. I have the same feeling that you regarding the population issue. I think we have this body so big to not have any reduction of population.

But on the other hand, I think this is the first time I see so clearly this information. This is very important, because this is the information we need to share with the media, with the people with it, because this is clear. This is easy to understand, which is the reason of the climate change of the nature, of the human, and how the observer of this. This is very interesting.

But I have some question. You are talking about climate change, but I never hear about the main problem of the environment issue, like this: that we now have had our car, and we change in five years. We have had a smart phone, and we change in one year. When you go to a shop and you ask to them, "I have a problem with this machine, or this device, or this?" they tell you, "It's more expensive to fix the machine, than to buy one. " This is the main problem. Why? Because when I think in my parents' life, or my grandparents' life, they have a car for 15 years, they have a watch for 10 years, they have a laundry or a refrigerator for 10 years.

We are changing the mentality in this world. It's not comprehensible that you need to change all that machines and devices. You have the capacity to only fix; if someone has five minutes to go to your house and repair. This is one issue.

The second issue is regarding the employment. For example, I am from Spain. We have now 50% of the population of the young people without employment. This is terrible. And the same with the other people. We have 25% unemployment. We can't think about it, because we can't think about all these important issues.

All the political people goes to a very important summit, and they talk about the same issue of the climate change, but they don't go to the real roots of the problem. We need to think about the real roots of the problems, because if not, people don't have this information—it's a big deal. People don't know this information.

I read a lot of information. I'm active about climate change. I've never seen it so clear, this about CO2. Never.

WYSMULLER: I thank you for that.

Q1: This is incredible. We need to use this information, this presentation in YouTube, go to the universities, go to the schools, go to the teachers, go to the parents; because they need to give to the children, and to the students, clear picture of the real world we are living in. And this is so powerful.

WYSMULLER: Well, now my presentation in Bulgaria is much larger. It's longer in length, more detailed, the message doesn't change. So like I say, if you guys want to follow me there, that's great. I would appreciate it. We would like to be tracked.

It will be televised. It will be on the internet.

The points you are making, you can live those things. I'll give you an example, personally. I had two vehicles. I have a Ford Fusion, which has 285,000 miles on it. It still has the original clutch. I have a Ford Van, which has 321,000 miles on it. I cross the country a lot. In the old days, I could fly from, let's say from Maine to California. I could stop off Cleveland, I could stop off in Oklahoma City, and the fare wouldn't change. That's changed, you can't do that anymore. So if I have speaking engagements across the country, I can't afford to fly there! So what I do is I drive. I schedule it so that I can drive, and that's why these cars have all these miles.

But I do believe in reusing, as opposed to recycling, keeping something in use; and I do that personally. From a philosophical standpoint, I'm very unhappy about things like polluting rivers, or adding carcinogens to the atmosphere.

That is what we should be focusing on, except in this country we have EPA focusing on CO2, this colorless, odorless gas, that I'm exhaling right now, that has no impact on sea level. Alright, so that's a misuse of our natural resources.

Now the other thing about unemployment, I see it in this country, too. We have just had a few proposals out to increase the minimum wage nationwide to like $15 an hour. What that's going to do, it's going to make it awfully hard, for anybody to "start a company." Because right off the bat they probably have to pay unskilled workers more than their carrying capacity. So what happens? The jobs don't get created. And you have regulatory effects. And they're strong in Spain, by the way; they make it very difficult to employ people. I've spoken in Spain twice in the last two years—once in Granada, and the other time in Barcelona; and the audience was very receptive, but people there talked about the unemployment. And if you make it difficult for an individual entrepreneur to start a business, my goodness, you can't grow an economy that way! You can over-regulate yourself out of business from an economic standpoint.

I should give this to somebody else. I'd stay here all day and talk.

DENISTON: I would just add one thing. What we really need is a broader paradigm shift, and as Dennis kind of opened with, this climate issue, I think, really needs to be situated within this broader Malthusian ideology. And with that has come this whole zero-growth conception, that we need to stop economic growth.

And I would just point to one thing which I think is good to give a sense of the type of thing we need to fight against and just completely shift away from. Henry Kissinger had authored a document called NSSM 200, which was classified at the time. It's now unclassified, you can find it online; comes up quickly with a Google search, "National Security Study Memorandum 200"; where it was declared that U.S. national security interests required that certain Third World nations not become First World nations, because that means they would use more resources, and consume the limited resources on the planet too quickly, and this must be stopped. And this was U.S. policy; Kissinger authored it, it was a classified study. Mexico, I can't remember the whole list of nations, maybe you know, it's like some 15 or 20 nations, something in that range.

So this is the type of Malthusian ideology we need to shift away from. The hard-core proponents of this climate change scare issue are of the same mentality. The other aspect of what we are doing with EIR, Executive Intelligence Review, the LaRouche organization, is promoting the idea of a new paradigm of economic cooperation and development, the type of development that's been taken off of the table for the past 40, 50 years in this zero-growth Malthusian policy, the type of thing that the President of China is now talking about, with "win-win" cooperation. The official policy of China is that, let's get rid of this zero-sum game, limited-wealth idea; and recognize that as mankind, as humanity, fundamental scientific revolution, scientific progress, technological progress, creates a net increase of total wealth for mankind as a whole. It's more beneficial for us to see Africa, South America, the whole world develop, because people create wealth, people create resources. There is not fixed resources. There's not limited resources. The only boundaries that exist are the boundaries that we put on ourselves by limits of our creative development.

That's the ideological shift that we absolutely need right now. And in that kind of paradigm, there's tons of economic development needed. The world needs all kinds of work to be done, and we can do that. And we really see what's going on now, at the General Assembly is potential for that type of shift occurring, the world moving away from this zero-growth Malthusian policy which has dominated for far too long; and towards a new era where the interest of nations is in the mutual benefit of each other through growth, through development. That's the shift that we are fighting for and absolutely need. I think this goes with these issues of jobs and development and all these things.

Q2: I'm [name inaudible] from U.S. Africa News.; I will be a little bit of time because I have to translate whatever I have in French to English. So, the [Britain? inaud 1.05.53] here is talking about Africa continent, in a term that Africa will be affected with climate change.

You said you give a lot of conferences around the world, have you given a conferences in Africa?

WYSMULLER: Not yet, I'm willing to accept an invitation.

Q2: I am not the President of any country, but I am just somebody who is trying to give a voice to Africa. Because I came in this country and I realized that Africa doesn't have a voice. So, through you, can it be possible to engage some type of negotiation to go in one of these African countries, and if you want, I can direct one of your proposals or give it to one of the ambassadors. Since I am Cameroonian, I can bring it to the Cameroon Embassy to see if you can go over there for this type of lecture, because honestly, it is very, very important.

And the question I ask here, thank you, you already answered that question. Because we talk about hunger in Africa. We talk about democratic change in Africa. All the time, everything that is a little bit negative to talk about Africa. So like recently, President Obama was in Africa, and he was asking all African lawmakers to preserve their natural resources and air, to avoid this climate change.

But in contrast, we see that, I don't know how to put it in French, in English, they call it in French, the pygmée, they are poor little people. In their area they kicked them out, cut all the trees, because they want to make a lot of good things here. So where are they going to go?

Can you please, like in another few months, according to your schedule, try to think about Africa in this application?

WYSMULLER: I will give you my card. Please feel free to contact me. And I will be more than happy to work with you or anybody you choose. I've gone all over the world. I've lectured in Australia, and I've lectured in South America, Central America, the Caribbean. I'm not bashful. I will be more than pleased to help you. And help people understand that climate change is not a problem for Africa! Climate change is a method that current governments are using to raise taxes, and try to get the general population to feel good about asking the government to raise taxes, and then the government naturally, happily complies. It will not affect sea-level rise. And that's the message that I wanted to make sure everybody understood here today.

So if that's an excuse, well, there are other excuses, too. For instance, there's a concept called accumulated cyclone energy; it's called ACE, if you Google it. And what it is, is a measure of strength of tropical cyclones, and hurricanes. And ACE will tell you how it's measured, if you go to their website. And for the last 15 years, accumulated cyclonic energy has dropped! For a 15-year period it's going down! There are no major hurricanes that have hit the U.S. in about 10 years. Hurricanes around the rest of the world are slightly diminished in intensity. Tornadoes in the United States, in all categorie—F-5, F-4, F-3, F-2, F-1 —are all either declining or flat. No category of tornadoes in the U.S. is increasing. So, to blame weather events, not climate events, on CO2, is basically dishonest. And there's no other way to put it.

And the scientists who accept government dollars to try to come up with statistics, that will allow this taxation mantra to continue, are basically corrupting science. That's very sad. And we see it,—in my NASA TRCS Group and we kind of shrug our shoulders, and we write letters to people; and we give presentations; and we try to make sure that people really understand the science. You've gotten a little dose of the science here. There is more. Like I say, call on us, email Hal Doiron or myself, we'll put you in touch with people who can help you. And maybe if I'm not available, they can travel and lecture; we have people are doing this all over the world.

Anybody else for a question?

SPEED: Excuse me, could I just respond for a moment? I'll be right at you, but I wanted to respond to this gentleman, because he referenced President Barack Obama's trip to Africa. I thought that was morally reprehensible. I think what the President was doing, was that he was representing British colonial policy. Remember the President also had—at his request—an interview with Sir David Attenborough, who is very close to Prince Philip, and basically their orientation toward Africa is, that of reducing the population of Africa.

To understand what should be done with Africa, for example, there was a famous Cheikh Anta Diop who wrote a book back in 1978 called, Black Africa, the Economic and Cultural Basis for a Federated State. He advocated that Black Africa must develop the most advanced technologies, such as thermonuclear fusion power, which he discusses in his book in 1977-78, as the necessary platform from which Africa, had to be thought about; that it had to be brought into development, exactly at the same level as any advanced set of nations—of course, we're talking about over 50 nations, in the case of Africa as a whole.

Contrasted to that was what was referenced before, which was the so-called National Security Study Memorandum 200, which was done by Kissinger. And the reason that it's important to reference Barack Obama in this context, is because the role he played in that trip, was to essentially call for population reduction in Africa. And it must be understood that, at least from the standpoint of Executive Intelligence Review, I think it is very important for African nations, as a whole, who played a very important role in Copenhagen in 2009. That was the way, or the particular avenue, through which that was shut down, that the climate change agreement was not passed, because African nations said they would not sign an economic suicide pact, which is exactly what that would be.

The contrasted policy—and there are many things we could say about this; I know there are many other questions—but Mr. Lyndon LaRouche wrote a whole book back in 1981s called, Stop Club Of Rome Genocide In Africa! Critical Comments Appended to the Lagos Plan of Action, it was a particular thing in Nigeria at the time, a 300-page book, all about the various forms of advanced industrial technology and progress that we can have in the African continent, just like any other continent.

I think the Chinese have that orientation about Africa. I don't think America does. And so I just wanted to take that opportunity, because that's precisely why we wanted to have this press conference today, prior to those discussions at the end of the week. And I would just urge that nations of Africa take the same position that they took back in 2009, this occasion in Paris, the upcoming conference.

Q3: I'm from Syria, from the Middle East. I see how the climate change overseas, and it's not as I see it in the United States. Let me give you an example. The car inspection is every year, but when the car gets old, where do they ship it to? The Middle East, they send it to the Middle East. And all this black smoke that comes from car, it's changing the atmosphere in that region.

Now what I see, is a chain in there, because these people used to live on crops. When the machinery kicked in, everything changed, even related to health issues too, and the ozone; and the type of life that these people live these days, not just in Africa, [Syria's] not that far from Africa; if we want to compare it to Africa, or in the Middle East, all those people, their type of life is changing.

My concern is the pollution in the air, and how can we solve this problem? If the temperature is rising and if the atmosphere, if the ozone is another problem that we're facing, we're facing health issues. We're facing machinery.

And also, I want to reply to a question. I remember when I was in college, they told us that when Sweden was having a problem with unemployment, a lot of people they break their glasses in their house, so they can have the factories work back again. So this is to help people who worked in those factories to start working again. And I think if we put timing for every product, that means we are eliminating other people from getting jobs. So that's why when you see the bulbs dead after three months, you're creating jobs for others. That's what I see.

Q1: Yeah, but I'm thinking of the people who fix the machines, devices, because you can sell more products from the factories, or you can promote more employment for the people, [inaudible 1.16.45] if you know in Ghana, for example, there is a [inaudible] all the world. And this is a very difficult issue because they recycle the devices in Ghana, and [inaudible] Europe and U.S. [inaud 1.17.26] And I think we can promote to take value of the things, more than to use and replace, use and replace. I think so.

A very quick question: For me is, I think it is very, very interesting in this dialogue about climate change, but I think perhaps, when I see this in page number 8, the Pope pictures, like I seen on the street, I think the Pope is a good alliance for this cause. This is my perspective now. Why? Because for example, perhaps he's not so worried about the CO2. But he's very worried about, very concerned about the situation of the trees in Brazil. That's not a question of CO2. This is a question of people are cutting, and cutting, and cutting, and cutting trees in all the world. And this is something that the Pope is very clear mind.

And when I think you are working to say to the people or the climate change is not so big like the politician likes to say with us, and we can invest the money in other more important things, like people in Africa, or people in Latin America, or everywhere. I think, you need to think who could be a good alliance for you. And the Pope is a very good alliance, because now the people start to listen to the Pope. And I think that you and the Pope have the same idea of the problem. Perhaps in the paper he'll write very clearly, as to like the issue. But for people in the [inaudible 1.18.49] in the world, absolutely, in line with you; with climate change, absolutely, in line with you. I think it's important to have such reporters who ask maybe repercussion, then put some example that I consider they are not absolutely right. This is my point of view.

WYSMULLER: I think the Pope has been misled.

Q1: Could be, could be.

WYSMULLER: Certainly on certain aspects of climate change, the Pope has been misled, because the Pope sees CO2 as a problem. It really isn't. Poverty is a problem. And by the way, this isn't just limited to Africa; you can electrify South America too! There are parts of Brazil that could really, really use a lot of electricity, and they're resource rich. It's the development of the people's ability to become educated, and contribute and be productive in society, that should be the key. And if the Pope is on that wavelength, I'm with the Pope.

But I think on climate he's been misled. He believes CO2 is a problem. Our President has been misled, in the same way. It's not good for the world. What you need to do is get past that, get through the truth; and then the Pope can do what he should do, and that's preserve the people that belong to his flock, and make the world a better place. That should be his objective.

Q1: [inaud 1.20.48] of New York.

WYSMULLER: Yeah. In New York, the Church is I think is like the sixth biggest landowner in New York, with churches and schools all over the place. They get police protection, they get fire protection, but they don't pay taxes. So there's always this groundswell in New York City of, "gee, you know, we've got to do something about the Church here." Here comes the Pope, siding on the side of those who want to increase taxes on petrochemical companies, all right? And all of a sudden, the pressure is off the Church.

So the Pope gets to do what the Pope must do, and his first priority is to preserve the Church, no matter what. Once he does that he can do some other things. But here, he is deflecting the taxation attempts on the Church, and say, well, I'm going to be working with you. We'll work to blame CO2 so we can raise taxes on carbon emitters and things like that. So the Pope is basically siding with the side that will not go after him, and make his Church impoverished by taxing them. That's a little side issue here.

DENISTON: I will just add, the Pope's clearly been misinformed. We've found that most significant the role this John Schellnhuber, in particular, as somebody who's been on record for believing the world has a 1 billion person carrying capacity. He's closely allied to these just radical insane Malthusian factions in the British Monarchy, that have expressed this repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, and we went through some quotes from Prince Philip, who has openly in public interviews, lamented how terrible it was to eradicate malaria; how bad that was, because that allowed population to grow in these regions.

So Schellnhuber is just a hard-core component of this. These guys are not really concerned about the atmosphere, they're not really concerned about the environment. They are concerned about maintaining a system where a very small few run the world and much of the world is kept underdeveloped in a lower developed state. And this guy Schellnhuber is very high level in the system.

So we think in particular, the Pope says what he's going to say, but know this guy in particular, has played a very significant role in shifting the Vatican. He's worked with another individual, [martin] Palmer, who has been a person attempting to recruit the religious community to the climate change agenda for a few decades now, who's been a personal assistant and collaborator with Prince Philip since the late '80s. We go through this in the report.

So we a very particular faction of people, with a very particular well-stated articulated clearly expressed, and acted upon, ideology, intervening into the situation around the Vatican. Exactly what led to that and made this particular Pope susceptible to that, we're not totally sure. But what we know the character of the faction that has moved in on him, and that's part of this whole process is to call that out, make that clear, that this is a shift towards a very evil view of man, a very evil policy.

And as we've discussed, we have a very different direction the world can be going in. If we are concerned about environmental problems, as was discussed, the biggest way we're going to solve any environmental problem is rapid technological progress, scientific technological progress. And that's what's being denied by this Malthusian faction. So we see a very clear line being drawn over these issues.

SPEED: If you get our report, you'll see in the report, a discussion from John Paul II, as a result of a 13-year study that was done by the Vatican re-evaluating the Galileo case. And what the Pope says is this, he says, "Well, at the time of Galileo, we all thought that the whole cosmos was the Solar System, and one group of people were saying that the Earth was the center, and another group were saying that the Sun was the center. As a result of Einstein and others, we now know, that neither thing was true." He says, "Now that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have changed our position vis-à-vis Galileo, but it does indicate that often there are other considerations, other ideas, an entirely different way, physically, that we may be able to view the situation."

One of the things that Ben has done a lot of work on, and our EIR team has been working on a lot, is the notion of the Galactic impact. The impact by the Galaxy on the Solar System, and then, as a result, on climate on Earth. And the reason I point this up, is because of what John Paul II did was to make it clear, that being open to refuting your axioms, changing what you think, and doing that from the standpoint of the notion that the human mind is the source of wealth, and it's also the source of its own correction. So human beings are not pollutants! This is the crucial idea that I want to make sure we make clear here today: That you require more people in the world. We do not have overpopulation. But what we also require is not to send old cars to Syria, while we also advocate policies that basically try to destroy the nation as a whole. We won't go too far right now on that topic.

So, yes, that pollution problem, again, absolutely. But what's really going on? We're trashing the entire nation. The United States' policy in Libya trashed Libya. It was wrong! We trashed Iraq. We trashed Afghanistan.

And so what has to be done is that the conception is that, as Executive Intelligence Review sees it, this UN session can, in fact, cause a dialogue among nations, that can actually get at these underlying axioms. And certainly if anybody's ideas, scientifically or otherwise, are right, they should become the hegemonic ideas that the world believes in.

But I thought it was important just to indicate that. There's a gentleman at the end.

Q5: Thanks for the opportunity. [inaud 1.27.42] Rodriguez from Ecuadorian News reporter. Really I wish after this release, we could really make one statement really in as example from Ecuador, and the example from Ecuador is the reflect from many of the countries of the world.

In Ecuador, from 1996, example, the Exxon explore the jungle Amazona to get our petroleum, and they practically destroyed the jungle. And now in Ecuador, in the south of Ecuador, Cuenca, exactly the city, in that part, the government is kind of for the money. And they work to explore it to get the gold over there. They have a mine for gold. Isn't nobody [inaud 1.28.24] over here. The Indians from the communities they're fighting for years, and nobody is trying to help to try to send the government's and can't get the gold over there. Maybe they think they can get a lot of money [inaud 1.28.44] trying to [inaudible] our natural people. So we can do something. This kind of raise confidence, [inaud 1.28.51] permanently to protest what about the pollution [inaud 1.28.57] Thanks

SPEED: Are there any further questions. Yes, there is just one last one.

Q6: I'm also from Syria and this is a big issue. And when I was walking on the street, I see the stand with LaRouche information. I see a [signboard] who put Obama wrong, Putin right. I think they are wrong too. Because as you know, in Syria, now we are already worried about immigration, being employed in Europe. But we need to think about what happened four years before, and why in four years, didn't no one do nothing to stop the war in Syria? And I think it's not a question only for Obama. It's a question especially for Putin, who during a long time was promoting and supporting the Syrian President, and I think this is incredible. We are looking at this every day. We do nothing; and for example, here in the U.S., we see alliance with [inaud 1.30.29]

We try to prioritize the important things and to put the news focal point, in the important issue like this, not in [inaudible] or something like this. I think I'd really like to put on the table that in these complex issues, they are not good men and bad men. We are all in the middle. And if we like to, as you like, to promote a very important idea, you need to have with you a lot of people to support you. And if in the way you are losing people who can support you, for me it's a pity. And I think we need to, first of all, to set forth all the information that is great, and second to try to stay with your alliance to go that way.

WYSMULLER: Let me see if I can address your question. This is the first day that I've been allied with this group. I happen to be on the same wavelength—I didn't know that. But my focus is on the science.

Science can do an awful lot to help places like Syria. I think of one example, it's very presumptuous, by the way, for a guy like me to say, "Ok, this is going to cure everything." Science can help.

If Syria was supported, instead of spending billions of dollars fighting CO2, if they spent a few billion building desalination plants all along the Syrian coast, you could revitalize Syrian agriculture. What the Israelis do right down the road, they started this big desal project. If you go to a supermarket here in New York City, you can find Israeli salt! Why would anybody buy Israeli salt? Well, it happens to be that's what they have left over when they desalinate, and they sell the salt and they're making some money here!

Syrians could do something like that. But again revitalize agriculture, they could be self-sufficient. Water is key in that area of the world. What you need to do is focus on what is key in the areas: Africa needs electricity, so does Brazil. Brazil doesn't need trees, they've got lots of them. But Syria could use some trees, and if you could water, if you had sufficient water, you could grow the cedars in Lebanon again!

We've changed the world, but we can make it better. And technology and science is a great way to do it. We have science resources in this country, and when we educate the rest of the world, and allow those children to go to school, they're going to produce the brain-power that we need. It's going to be brain-power that saves humanity, not carbon tax.

SPEED: Okay thanks. So I'm going to bring this to a conclusion, but I do want to recognize a statement that was written for this occasion, and I think we may have it available in the back. Is that the case? It's called, "The Evil Lethal Underside of Human Population Control," by Paul Driessen, Senior Policy Analyst Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and Congress for Racial Equality. I'm just going to read his final concluding paragraph.

"From my perspective, it is a crime against humanity, to impose policies that pretend to protect the world's most energy-deprived masses from hypothetical computer-generated climate resource depletion and other catastrophes, decades from now, by perpetuating now, energy deprivation, poverty, malnutrition, and diseases, that kill millions of people every year. These are fascinating issues. One has to wonder how the vast majority of the world's people feel about them, and who will ask President Obama, Pope Francis, Ban Ki Moon, and UN Climate Director Christiana Figueres, some of these very troubling and inconvenient questions."

I want to thank everybody for coming today. And if there's any other questions or discussion that we need to have, please feel free to see us at the conclusion of this.



Also Relevant