Fighting the carbon scam is vitally important

By Justin Credible

Recently, I received a quick message from a dear friend of mine. The subject at hand was a curious question as to why I had a personal drive to voice my views on the CO2 scam, and more than likely, why I am investing the time and energy into online postings and obviously this website.

“re: CO2 fascination… was thinking…

I find too much attention on rebelling against something like this a choice that wastes our precious energy that could be put towards positive action in the world. Maybe helping someone:) I just think your keen insight and efforts could do some real good in the world. It hurts me to see such revelry in rebellious nature without some intention of bettering life. I am trying to see the point here… help?

I’m going to be very detailed in my response to this, in hopes that it will help this person, a fantastic human being whom I have utmost respect for, to gain a clear understanding of my motives and hopefully avail an open mind to the big picture here. In fact, I thought it would make an excellent piece for publication (name withheld, of course) so as to possibly create awareness for anyone else in the future who may come along and ask the same questions, so that is why I am posting this on the site.

First off, I’d like to mention that it’s been over three months since this blog went online, and there are many people to thank for the explosive growth and success of During the first month alone we managed to welcome just over 1,000 unique visitors to the site, and since then we have been linked and sourced to many other excellent webpages and climate realist blogs all around the world.

The hits have increased enormously. Emails and messages have been overwhelmingly encouraging and very supporting, with only the occasional enviro extremists attacking the premise of this site. As expected, they never attempt to debate the actual hard science of which we quote on a daily basis, largely because they cannot, but rather they simply resort to name calling and insist that human beings are “evil” and we must go back to the stone age to “save the planet” from their imagined climate crisis scenarios. As I have often said, their agendas are often not about environmentalism. It’s about anti-humanism. It’s about furthering their ideologies, and reinforcing their twisted beliefs that humans aren’t a natural part of the planet, and that civilization and industrialization is somehow “not supposed to happen” and is “unnatural”.

My answer to them is…well, what the hell are you smoking? Thus we come to the point of my motivation, this website and it’s message.

This ideology that many greens cling to so strongly just baffles me to no end. The idea that we exist solely to live in trees and should all be frolicking in the forests and using leaves to wipe our butts is absurdity in its highest form! (Yes, you can quote me on that)

Human beings have come a long way. Our journey has been full of ups and downs, but overall has resulted in great knowledge, understandings, and advancements. From that knowledge we have pushed ahead and evolved, our lives are far richer, healthier and most of all much longer. In fact, if we were still living in caves we’d be considered old agers by 25 or 30.

We now have modern technologies, medicines, transportation, and a far better understanding of the rest of the world and its people. Most of this progress is thanks to the industrial age and the fuels we burn to make it all possible. These fuels were given to us by Mother Earth, there is nothing “unnatural” about them. In fact, everything we create comes from Mother Earth. Your food, your house, your car, your computer. Everything.

Recently, a Greenpeace statement really struck a chord with me as it goes to show just how many so-called environmentalists view human beings as a whole. The statement basically said “Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions come from both natural and human sources.”

You see, right there, the very claim that CO2 is “unnatural” is unnerving in every way. It is one of the most relevant and necessary natural gases in the world. Or to claim that HUMAN-PRODUCED CO2 is unnatural puts the nail in the coffin even further. Are they attempting to convey the idea (ideology) that human beings are unnatural?

In a nutshell, yep. This disturbing religion has become the norm for so many misguided people nowadays. And it’s spread to the media, politicians, and heavily funded green organizations who have many agendas which mostly rely on making you, the people, feel “guilty” for existing and living a comfortable life. What a load of rubbish!

Take a look around you. Everywhere you are bombarded with messages telling you how you’re supposedly destroying the planet. What most people don’t see or even realize, however, is how much money is being made on this hysteria, and more importantly how many people are suffering and have died because of the green campaigns. The profits are enormous, and the legislation and taxes are coming fast and furious. Here’s a quick list of a few notable past fallacies:

– The environmentalist push to replace incandescant bulbs
Turns out CFC bulbs are mini toxic waste dumps.

– The environmentalist push to ban DDT
This has resulted in tens of millions of deaths.

– The environmentalist push to ban chlorine
Come on Greenpeace, you’ve GOT to be kidding me. Thank god this one didn’t fly.

– The environmentalist claim to ban CFC’s to save the ozone layer
Turns out even that may be misguided “science”. Heh.

– The environmentalist claims of “overpopulation”
Ha! We’ve barely even scratched the surface and there’s lots of room left. Besides, population is levelling off now. The same groups who began promoting the global warming hoax (The Club of Rome, the UN) were also behind the population scare in past decades.

– The recent nutty pop culture fad of mythical “sustainability” and a need to “conserve energy”
Sorry, but that one was concieved by population reduction advocates and extremists, including the same Club of Rome, the UN, and Big Green, all once again the anti-human camps. I’ve never bought into that sustainability myth for even a second. There are massive oil reservoirs we haven’t even tapped yet which could sustain us for hundreds of years thus allowing us to further develop and progress into new technologies for the future, but greenies are blocking all attempts to get this oil. And when I say future technologies, I don’t mean those bird-killing windmills, fairyland solar panels in the north, and biofuel crops which have taken over existing crops and are raising the price of food around the world and causing even more starvation. (Every time I see a sticker that says “Powered by biodiesel” I always wonder how many people have starved to death for that corn-fantasy fuel, which by the way not only destroys crops but also ends up producing more of that “evil” CO2 than traditional fuels)

But none of that matters, because it’s not about the environment for these campaigners, it’s simply the anti-civilization, anti-progress mentality that has taken over. They don’t accept that humans are part of the environment, in whatever way we evolve and develop, and they don’t accept that true unsustainability would soon be realized if we stopped burning fuels.

The Green Legacy continues – The gift that keeps on killing.

As Bruce Walker at American Thinker said:

“The consequences of politically correct pseudo-science always are absolutely ghastly. Rachel Carson in Silent Spring persuaded Americans that DTT would wipe out birds and decimate nature. She was absolutely wrong, but her pseudo-science was accepted by the Left as holy writ. DDT was banned and tens of millions of poor people suffered and died because of her propaganda. Sterilization of inferior races was once politically correct science, and that led directly to one of the greatest evils in human history. Politically correct but scientifically silly theories of manmade global warming are threatening to impoverish us with draconian restrictions.”

Which brings us to today’s prophet profit of doom, Al gore, and the unfounded claim that CO2 (carbon dioxide) emitting from our burning of fuels is going to cause climate changes or global warming.

As well documented on this site and many others, including peer-reviewed scientific papers from countless sources, the science says that is simply not true at all, and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a politically-driven UN organization which ignores most of the relevant science and scientists, as do the media. Many IPCC scientists have resigned over this very issue.

The earth is actually cooling, and while extreme weather and summer ice melts are a constant media wet dream, the fact is violent weather has actually decreased over the last century, polar ice caps are larger than they were 40 years ago, and to put the icing on the cake the science also says that more CO2 equals more life! CO2 is a plant food, a nutrient, and the more we produce means faster growing forests and food crops all around the world, which is essential to a growing population. It is NOT pollution. This is an absolutely wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution, and it goes to show just how well mother nature balances everything out. It also goes to show just how natural we really are.

The earth put fuel there, we simply used it and released life-giving carbon into the atmosphere which benefits all living things. To claim that it’s “unnatural” or we’re “not supposed to” doesn’t make one shred of sense to me. In fact, NOT using it would seem a very backwards step in our evolution. It is wholly natural. And it not only benefits plant life, it greatly benefits our lives in every way. Furthermore, energy is abundant and cannot be “saved” for later. You either use it or you don’t. It’s still there. Turning your light switch off won’t save anything but a few cents on your electric bill. On that note, those who participate in propaganda events such as Earth Hour should really click here and take note of the ideology they’re supporting.

Another reality check: Currently our atmospheric CO2 concentration is only at about 385ppm (part per million), and it is well documented that plants thrive much better at concentrations of 1,000ppm or higher. Just like back when many plants developed and the Earth’s atmosphere was far richer with carbon than it is today.

Even if we burned every fuel on the planet we would not come even close to levels of the past, but the very small percent of CO2 we do emit every year (only about 3% of total CO2 is from mankind), greatly benefits all life and further “greens” the entire planet. I bet you didn’t know that U.S. forest growth has increased approximately 40% in the last half-century, did you? You can thank CO2. Isn’t it ironic that the tree-huggers are trying to demonize the very life-giving gas that feeds their trees? I find it astronomically ironic, but not surprising.

The mission of many behind these eco-guilt campaigns is very clearly financially motivated, as the global warming industry now employs tens of thousands of people and involves tens of billions of dollars in funding. Soon that figure will become TRILLIONS with assinine carbon tax schemes and the like being pushed by Obama and Gore.

But let’s forget the politicians and the mega multinational corporations who are profiting off all this green hype for a second and remember, as I mentioned above, on the environmentalist side it seems many of these people simply want to get rid of cars, suburbs, and modern civilization. It has nothing to do with the CO2 science, obviously.

Thanks to a well orchestrated and well funded campaign by Big Environment, many politicians, state controlled mainstream media, the UN, and some of the world’s elite who have openly admitted this, we now have this imagined “crisis” and everyone is demanding “eco-friendly” paper shopping bags and stuffing their families into notoriously dangerous Toyota Prius golf carts. It’s absolute insanity.

They say the only way to avert this crisis in western countries is to open your wallet and give up your freedoms, revert back to the stone age, and ignore the hundreds of millions of people who will die in the third world because these agendas are seeking to shut down development in those countries, denying them the right to burn mother natures fuels in their own nations and thus denying them the right to DEVELOP, industrialize, feed their population, and advance. Of course, if environmentalists really are anti-human, then I guess it wouldn’t matter, would it?

Please, prove me wrong. I’m desperate to be wrong. But sadly, I believe I’m far too correct.

On that note, I am not a scientist, nor an expert. However, I am a rational thinker and can see right through this global hoax like a squeaky clean window. I’ve been saying it for years now, and with the power of the internet and a current mass awakening of people realizing this obvious truth taking place, I feel it’s absolutely necessary to intensify this effort, right now.

I am just a messenger, this site a voice of reason, a channel to further spread awareness from those real experts who don’t have the backing of Big Environment and Hollywood. We will continue to debunk the alarmist rhetoric and create awareness. Thanks to the incredible support from scientists who have contacted me personally, and the brave people such as these 31,000 scientists, these 700 scientists, these 115 scientists, this institute, this institute, this institute, this institute, and all these blogs and organizations popping up all over the place, the tipping point is near.

In particular, I want to extend a special thanks to our friends and scientists at sites and newsblogs such as ClimateRealists, CO2Science, GlobalWarmingHoax, SEPP, ICECAP, NothingToDoWithCO2, ClimateChangeFraud, WarningSigns, JoanneNova, ACM, TomNelson, and many others along with all our readers. Science will ultimately prevail over science fiction. Let’s just hope it happens before we’re condemned to living in caves without the right to light a fire, or paying through the nose for permits to do so.

In conclusion to you, my dearest friend, it should be fairly obvious that I am trying to help someone. I’m trying to help 6.5 billion someones, to better their lives, and more importantly I’m trying to ensure over a third of them enjoy their right to develop, to live, to exist. It’s disgusting to me that there are forces out there who would keep the developing nations walking barefoot through extreme poverty, and do so claiming it’s all to “save the world” from a problem that does not even exist.

Many of the advocates freely admit they would like to see human population largely reduced. Now, if only these environmentalists and politicians would focus their energy on real problems, such as deforestation, extreme poverty, nuclear weapons, etc, then maybe they wouldn’t be looking quite so tainted. But oh wait, there’s no money to be made fighting any of those problems. Just like there’s no money to be made on regulating the real drivers of our climate and causes of all global warming, because how do you tax the Sun? The clouds? Water vapour? You can’t.

I cannot think of a better way to expend my energy than fighting this baseless eco-religion, and as I take every deep breath, I thank the plants for the oxygen, and in turn I thank the carbon dioxide which enabled those plants to grow.

Oh, and by the way, turns out those plastic bags aren’t worse for the environment after all. No kidding.

PS: I highly advise everyone to check out the new site from Marc Morano. He is former Communications Director for the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee and senior aide, speechwriter, and climate researcher for Senator James Inhofe, and will become the executive editor and chief correspondent for, a pioneering climate and eco-news center. The site will be a special project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) with the goal of becoming the most comprehensive information center on climate news and the related issues of environment and energy.

Comments on this posting are encouraged!

11 thoughts on “Fighting the carbon scam is vitally important”

  1. Here's my view of the scam of the century:

    The climate change scam and blaming CO2 is the endgame of the whole environmental movement. To understand this one has to recognize that their real intention is not to save the environment (plants/animals) but to put more and more blame on us humans, which will eventually then lead to ever more difficult conditions to live and finally, if humans still don't stop reproducing, calls for a massive reduction of the human population.

    First they had a "cover" for their REAL intentions because they could blame gases and substances that were really harmful to plants or animals/humans, such as sulfur, CO, lead in gasoline etc. They kept their plan on track through ever bigger restrictions on these gases/toxins (first it's sulfur acid being poured into rivers, then later when that stopped it becomes "acid rain", then when that stopped it became the ozone layer, i.e. something nobody see and so on)

    Since about the time of the mid 90ies however, they ran out of these actually harmful substances/gases to blame, after all almost every car produced by then had a catalytic converter, factories had expensive filters in their smokestacks, environmental laws had been established. So they HAD TO come up with something new, since their agenda was not about saving the environment. AND, they had to find a way to blame humans for something they could do nothing about, something that not even the best in human ingenuity could overcome. So they found out, that after all the toxic gases are removed from exhaust of modern machines, there's actually just one thing remaining, which is CO2, a component of clean air. Would they be able to blame this gas, they would virtually "plug" the exhaust of mankind and stop them in their tracks of progress and reproduction. And we can only congratulate their egg-heads for the amazing idea they came up with: CO2 is not toxic, but it leads to warming, and warming leads to catastrophe. So here we have it, and getting rid of CO2 is by any means, by the fundamental laws of chemistry and physics, when it comes to using earth's resources for our benefit, impossible. It leaves mankind without any possibility of using earth's resources. Mankind is no longer allowed to burn wood without planting a tree of the same size and waiting for it to grow. It leaves mankind no choice but to die, for the sake of the environment.

    That was their goal all along, and them attacking "clean" and "green" CO2 is an indicator that they're getting close to their endgame. Heaven help us if they succeed!

  2. well done Justin. you pretty much covered all the big points on the climate change myth and i've linked this site to many interested people. you deserve a medal for the work you're doing on this site to educate all the sheep out there and I'll gladly buy you a drink next time i'm in canada!

  3. I believe you when you say you are not a scientist.

    You quote some guy at AmericanThinker: "The consequences of politically correct pseudo-science always are absolutely ghastly. Rachel Carson in Silent Spring persuaded Americans that DTT would wipe out birds and decimate nature. She was absolutely wrong, but her pseudo-science was accepted by the Left as holy writ. DDT was banned and tens of millions of poor people suffered and died because of her propaganda. Sterilization of inferior races was once politically correct science, and that led directly to one of the greatest evils in human history. Politically correct but scientifically silly theories of manmade global warming are threatening to impoverish us with draconian restrictions."

    Of course that's a typo, it should be "DDT."

    But here's the rub: Rachel Carson was right. Nothing she claimed in Silent Spring has ever been shown to be faulty in subsequent testing. She was ahead of the curve in recognizing the dangers of DDT as already shown in research available to her in 1960 and 1961. The President's Science Advisory Council was tasked to check out her findings, and in May 1963 they reported Carson was right in every thing she said, but one: The dangers of DDT were much more serious than Carson had said, and action could not await "further study" as she had called for.

    The recovery of the American symbol, the bald eagle, was possible only with a ban on broadcast spraying of DDT — same for the osprey, brown pelican, and peregrine falcon.

    Had we listened to Carson and stopped the widespread use of DDT in agriculture earlier, it might have been viable to use DDT to stop malaria in Africa. But by the middle of the 1960s, mosquitoes had already developed resistance and immunity to DDT, which killed WHO's effort to eradicate malaria. It's not Rachel Carson's accurate statement of science that has killed millions, it was the stubborn refusal to act on what we knew then that is to blame, if anything is.

    And consider this: DDT was never banned in Africa, and has been in constant use there since 1946. Your source is time- and map-challenged. He's alleging that the 1972 cessation of spraying DDT on cotton, in Texas and Arkansas, somehow caused a rise in deaths starting in 1965. He's alleging that the cessation of DDT use in Texas and Arkansas caused trouble in Africa and Asia.

    You don't have to be a scientist to read a calendar or look at a map. It helps to have a little bit of science education to avoid being taken by a sucker by American Thinker, though. Those guys are vicious.

  4. Hmm let's see….

    10 years of not warming but cooling

    10 years of lies from IPCC

    Computer climate models flawed and wrong all the time. Oceans are lowering, atomic clocks show world spinning faster at equator. Temperature drop erases 100 years of heat gain. Court actions to put Polar bears on the endangered species list, yet their population is three times higher then the 50’s and are encroaching on villages.

    ARGO units showing oceans not warming but cooling. Co2 follows the heat rise, and Co2 levels are currently depleted on earth.

    Water is 95% of green house gas. Water covers over 75% of our planet. Warm water steams when left in the cold. 2008 Large ice pack in both poles building more then ever.

    The ice at the poles(north mainly) are always in fluctuation and are building right now. Glaciers are always melting till the next ice age. The earth is a open system expelling gases and heat to outer space. Our expelled gases and heat do not build up in the atmosphere. Our fossil fuel contribution to our atmosphere is .003 %. Global warming? Cooling temperatures for ten years, breaking records around the globe.

    Sun active and inactivity heating correlate with temperature records. If it were getting warmer from greenhouse gas in atmosphere temperatures would be increasing, not going down. The sun’s power created the stored energy reserves on earth, oil/coal is stored solar energy plants,

    Fermenting plants give off methane gas, just like from a oil well. Carbon 14 is produced by fracturing of particulate/molecules coming in from our galactic soup.

    More Carbon 14 is found/created when times on earth have had less sun, hence the high amount in coal. The early Carboniferous environment 354 to 290 Million Years Ago had 5 times co2 of today and was lush. The late Carboniferous environment(heat and CO2) was just like now, and in turn lack of oxygen deprived life and hindered decaying plants to create fossil fuels. Less CO2 is not better for us, it is worse. CO2 = plantlife = oxygen.

    The earths been cooling then warming since time, ever so slowly, interrupted only by the suns surface and core anomalies to change it drastically.

    Idiots like Mr Obama, Mr Gore, and any environmental nutcase who supports "climate change" legislations and policies should be locked up for crimes against humanity.

  5. this website has really opened my eyes. i've always had doubts about the fear mongering warming stories and thanks to people like you and the thousands of scientists speaking out on the web (since the MSM ignores them) the facts are all too clear and we need to nip this in the butt before carbon taxes and regulations abolish our freedoms and kill the poor. the only benefit to these policies is to line the pockets of Obama and crew who have stakes in the carbon credit business and multi trillion dollar corporations painting themselves "green". it will be a win-win for government and business, but a huge loss for free people everywhere.

  6. Timpanogos, even though this article is primarily about the climate fraud, not DDT, since you brought it up I'm going to rebuke your statements.

    1) Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson wrote "Dr. DeWitt's now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched." DeWitt's 1956 article (in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) actually yielded a very different conclusion. Quail were fed 200 parts per million of DDT in all of their food throughout the breeding season. DeWitt reports that 80% of their eggs hatched, compared with the "control"" birds which hatched 83.9% of their eggs. Carson also omitted mention of DeWitt's report that "control" pheasants hatched only 57 percent of their eggs, while those that were fed high levels of DDT in all of their food for an entire year hatched more than 80% of their eggs.

    2) Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."

    [Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]

    (This once again goes to show the anti-human twisted ideals some people have)

    3) The environmental movement used DDT as a means to increase their power, just like global warming is doing even moreso now. Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, commented, "If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before.. In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT."

    Simple as that. An excellent overview of the DDT catastrophe here: DDT Ban killed Millions: Anyone Responsible for Reckless Activism

    and here: DDT Fraud and Tragedy

    Finally, American Thinker has far better reporting and logical opinions than the IPCC or Al Gore ever could and their articles are highly acclaimed and widely circulated throughout both the mainstream and alternative press. Discrediting the well-known DDT scam on the basis of a typo or your personal liberal biased opinion is ridiculous.

    Thank you for your comments everyone!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *