New video from Bob Tisdale explains The Impact of Manmade Global Warming on a Blizzard Called Nemo and on Hurricane Sandy

Please refrain from calling the blizzard “Nemo” – it just encourages the people at the Weather Channel to beclown themselves with even more bizarre stunts…(I was going to mention that they were probably going to start naming tornadoes next, but that would just given them more ideas…)

Then – I would like to bring up the recordings of the recent 4th World wilderness Congress that preceded the 1992 Earth Summit. Here people like you and I are called “the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the Earth”. And a banking system set up by and for the Rothschilds is shown to be the centerpiece of the new mode of organization that “sustainability” measures will create. The attendees (like Maurice Strong) have no qualms about acknowledging the dominance of that family in World Affairs. Strong states that there is “no better person” to spearhead this project than Edmund Leopold de Rothschild, and that he (Rothschild) “epitomizes in his own life that positive synthesis between environment and conservation on the one hand and economics on the other” (Here Phillippe de Rothschild admits that his family is the “richest and most powerful family in the world”: http://www.scribd.com/doc/124350489/A-Rothschild-Confession
): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdgiehz9dU
The following overview notes what this would metastasize into, that “The 4th WWC introduced the concept of a World Conservation Bank, leading to the formation of the The Global Environment Facility (GEF) of the World Bank.”: http://wild10.org/en/about/accomplishments
We can see the outlines of these proposals being promoted at the present time. In a document called “Trading Emissions: Full Global Potential” (London: The Social Market Foundation, January 2008: http://www.smf.co.uk/assets/files/publications/SMF_Trading_Emissions.pdf) – written by Simon Linnett, Executive Vice Chairman of N.M. Rothschild, London (see “about the author” section of that document). In the document, he defines “greenhouse emissions” as the new form of “social market” and states: “That such a market has to be established on a world basis coordinated by an international institution with a constitution to match…. That, perhaps, it might be regarded as having wider benefits than merely `saving the planet’ – perhaps it might be the basis of a new world order, one that is not based on trade and/or conflict resolution. Perhaps one can see a way to achieve this goal through leadership, vision and some marginal and manageable renunciation of national sovereignty, how the world might just get there. The repercussions of addressing climate change may extend well beyond that single but critical issue…. Implicit in all the above is that nations have to be prepared to subordinate, to a certain extent, some element of their sovereignty to this world initiative.” He notes that “The political costs of such loss of sovereignty are lengthy. Loss of competitiveness (massively overstated in the activities in which energy is used – especially since trade will be more difficult, if, at the margin, transport is made more costly), loss of power and loss of direct control over economic levers are potentially the most significant and give the most cause for concern. But these actions are necessary if we are to answer the accusation that “it doesn’t matter what we do when China is expanding its energy usage at its current rate” – we have to bring China and India in and they are not going to enter a scheme where they do not have a “say”. When countries are already foregoing the right of direct control over monetary policy through the creation of independent central banks, this [the above] could be a relatively small price to pay for such inclusion.” He furthermore states that “The EU member states have recognised their need to subordinate sovereignty to the EU; in time, if this is to work, the EU itself will need to yield sovereignty to a bigger world body on carbon trading.” He states “Above all, this plan requires “sponsors” – a country prepared to host it and a senior politician prepared to lead this new initiative. If such a route map could be found, then perhaps we might be at the beginning of a new world constitution and a new world order.” He states that regulating this should be a “World Environment Authority” operating from a “world city with world skills and world facilities.” He then notes, in a section entitled “A natural role for London”, “London is a world financial centre (possibly “the” world financial centre).” and that “London would make a compelling case to house the World Environmental Agency.”
Documents retrieved from the congress from which audio of Edmund de Rothschild was taken state the following (in the introductory email, I endorsed Mullins – an endorsement which I redact because he is such a problematic source, but I stand behind everything else in the email prefacing the document. The document itself gives insight into the accumulated degeneracy of the elite of the world at present): http://archive.org/download/GeorgeHuntUncedEarthSummit1992cobdenClubsPapersaldousHuxleythe_125/1-1-the-cobdenClubsPapers.pdf Excerpts are as follows: “The time is pressing. The Club of Rome was founded in 1968, Limits to Growth was written in 1971, Global 2000 was written in 1979, but insufficient progress has been made in population reduction. Given global instabilities, including those of the former Soviet bloc, the need for firm control of world technology, weaponry, and resources, is absolutely mandatory. The immediate reduction of world population, according to the mid-1970′s recommendation of the Draper Fund, must be immediately affected. The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary. … Compulsory cooperation is not debatable with 166 nations, most of whose leaders are irresolute, conditioned by localist “cultures” and lacking the appropriate notions of the New World Order. Debate only means delay and forfeiture of our goals and purpose. The UN action against Iraq proves conclusively that resolute action on our part can sway other leaders to go along with the necessary program. The Iraq action proves that the aura of power can be projected and sustained and that the wave of history is sweeping forward. … We are the living sponsors of the great Cecil Rhodes will of 1877 … We stand with Lord Milner’s credo. We too are “British Race Patriots” and our patriotism is “the speech, the tradition, the principles, the aspirations of the British Race”. Do you fear to take this stand, at the very last moment when this purpose can be realized? do you not see that failure now, is to be pulled down by the billions of Lilliputians of lesser race who care little or nothing for the Anglo-Saxon system? …The Security Council of the UN, led by the Anglo-American Major Nation Powers, will decree that, henceforth, all nations have quotas for REDUCTION on a yearly basis, which will be enforced by the Security Council by selective or total embargo of credit, food, medicine or military force, when required. … outmoded notions of sovereignty will be discarded and the Security Council has complete legal, military and economic jurisdiction in any region in the world, to be enforced by the Major Nations of the Security Council. The Security Council of the U.N. will explain that not all races are equal, nor should they be. Those races proven superior by superior achievements ought to rule the lesser races, caring for them on sufferance that they cooperate with the Security Council. … All could be lost if opposition by minor races is tolerated and the vacillations of those we work with, our closest comrades, is cause for our hesitations. Open declaration of intent followed by decisive force is the final solution.”

Thanks Bob, you make a complexed subject digestible and understandable.

Do you have any measurements on the percentage of worldwide climate that is made by man? When you get that figure, you get back to me and we’ll talk.

bellicoseblissentia says:
February 14, 2013 at 6:56 pm
Thank you for your posts. If there is any doubt there is an actual conspiracy by a few wealthy people going on in the world to take control of the planet and enslave the sheeple, your writings should lay any of those doubts to rest. The sinister diabolical word game con/game plans by these people, powered by their massive wealth, is now easy for common people to figure out. It’s really not that complicated to understand.

I have to give the Rothschild’s credit for creating a self fulling diabolical prophesy that benefits themselves and only their own wealthy families. Congratulations Lord Rothschild, in deceiving the entire planet.

@ bellicoseblissentia says:
February 14, 2013 at 6:55 pm
“You earlier chastised people associating global warming skepticism with references to a New world Order. Unfortunately, there is hard evidence for such an association”
I took the time to do a simple google search about the claim regarding plans for depopulation and came across a source rather quickly. The search leads to George Washington Hunt. He has his own website. I stopped reading after this self-introduction:
“Hello, my name is George Hunt. I produce educational videotapes about the New World Order. I focus on the craven, immoral banking elite of Europe and America because they are the key figures of why there is so much evil in this world of ours. The Book of Revelations is very specific when it warns us about the members of the Synagogue of Satan. The words “synagogue” and “Satan” suggest that they are Jewish and they worship Satan. They certainly are as smooth.”
https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/organisations/introduction/1991_09_22_supposed_UNCED_paper.htm
http://wwww.archive.org/details/GeorgeHuntUncedEarthSummit1992cobdenClubsPapersaldousHuxleythe_125
http://georgewashingtonhunt.blogspot.com/2011/03/george-hunt-africa-trip-i-arab.html
What reassurance do you have that your “hard evidence” is not simply a forgery?

Sandy maximum sustained wind speeds were about 25 meters per second at several offshore buoys. Wind speeds for a hurricane must be at least 33 meters per second sustained wind at the surface for one minute intervals. There are no land based surface stations showing sustained winds anywhere near the hurricane threshold. Wind speeds for land based stations were well below the offshore buoy speeds. The NHC gave deceptive advisories by claiming that surface speeds estimated by aircraft and radar were extrapolated to showing surface speeds at hurricane force, but there were no real surface measurements that verify those claims. They also were deceptive in calling gusts over 33 meters per second as “hurricane force” winds. Gusts are not sustained winds, gusts don’t define a hurricane. Does anyone think one gust over 33 meters per second could be called a hurricane?
Then the media then gets excited and confused, starts saying there are “hurricane” level winds.
Post-Sandy video recordings show damage consistent with wind speeds of a tropical storm, but nothing like a real hurricane.
Most damage was flooding/storm surge based. Just because there was a lot of shore damage does not mean Sandy was a hurricane. Structures in affected states were never built to codes like those in Florida. The insurance companies may have paid some wind damage claims, but not because Sandy was a “hurricane”. Their lawyers know that the storm called “Sandy” did not meet the legal definition of hurricane.

@phlogiston:
Ah, thank you. Basically, we are talking about a multi-decade oscillation then? Each el niño raises baseline temperatures for some time, but eventually, after more than 30 years (?), it goes back to normal?

S. Meyer says:
February 15, 2013 at 2:35 pm
@ bellicoseblissentia says:
February 14, 2013 at 6:55 pm
“You earlier chastised people associating global warming skepticism with references to a New world Order. Unfortunately, there is hard evidence for such an association”
I took the time to do a simple google search about the claim regarding plans for depopulation and came across a source rather quickly. The search leads to George Washington Hunt. He has his own website. I stopped reading after this self-introduction:

You need to look at the info with more dispassion, which is how it was presented at one time for well over a decade on Hunt’s online presence. Mr. Hunt has recently added his personal religious opinion, which I don’t agree with. Hunt’s original impetus for the site was the death of his teenage son. His boy died on a ski hill in Australia in 1986, if I remember correctly. Hunt went to the Fourth Wilderness Congress in 1987 as a volunteer worker, one year after his teenage son’s death, out of a sense of profound grief because his boy, his child, was a greenie. He wanted to honor his kid.
I am, however, capable of judging the original audio, which is so devastating that it shocks me that more WUWT readers haven’t heard it. I purchased the sources that Baron Edmund de Rothschild cites in his online audio to ascertain what he was talking about. Rothschild’s cites are not only laughable but contemptible; they are the origins of Bill McKibbens’ less than scientific rhetoric. I remained surprised to this day that the plan that Maurice Strong, Baron Edmund de Rothschild, Michael Sweatman, David Rockefeller, James Baker, and William Ruckleshaus were advancing is not more widely known. You can listen to them in their own words. They want to do to the world what the EU has done to Greece and Spain, which is devastate them.

Thank you, Bob Tisdale and phlogiston. I am just amazed by what one can learn at this site!