All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 24, 1997 - Bill Cooper
01:02:51
Global Warming – Jay
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm going to play a little bit of the opening.
Sing with me.
Sing with me.
You're listening to the Hour of the Time. I'm William Cooper. Ladies and gentlemen,
tonight we're going to have a guest who should be calling any second now, and we're going
to be talking about something that concerns everybody upon the face of this earth, and
I'm talking specifically about climate.
The weather.
There are an awful lot of people putting out an awful lot of hype these days.
They're telling us that We're experiencing the so-called greenhouse effect, that man has caused the emission of too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
And shortly, we're going to reap the harvest of that, which will be, you guessed it, Parrots everywhere!
Every place is going to become a rain forest, or a tropical paradise, or it's going to get too hot, and all the plants and the animals are going to die out, or something, some such nonsense like that.
We're all going to roast, and et cetera, and et cetera, and et cetera, and et cetera.
It's going to be terrible, they say.
And, of course, the continued warming of the atmosphere will cause tremendous amounts of water to evaporate, and the skies will be filled with clouds, and there will be sort of a perpetual rainfall.
Others say that this This moisture that evaporates from the tropical regions will be carried up over the poles and will be deposited as snow and ice, and it will precipitate the onslaught of an ice age.
Is that true?
Well, hopefully we're going to find out the answer to some of these questions tonight.
And there are others who say that this so-called Climate change is going to cause just all kinds of disruptions that nobody can predict.
One day, heavy rain.
Another day, beautiful sunshine.
Who knows what the truth is, ladies and gentlemen?
I can tell you what I wrote in my book, Behold the Pale Horse, years ago.
Based upon information that I saw, predicted by government scientists of the Naval Research Laboratory, that the sun was... basically, what I read is that the sun was dying, and this was indicated by the pattern of sunspots that had been measured over a long period of time, and that we were going to go into an ice age.
And the truth of the measurement of the temperature around the globe seems to indicate that there's more of a cooling than there is a warming, ladies and gentlemen.
But over the years, scientists who used to say that we were going into an ice age based upon sunspot activity and other things, one being the cyclical historical record of ice ages, that we are at the 10,000 year end of a warming cycle, and so that naturally we must go into an ice age.
are now saying that, gee, it's global warming and there's not going to be an ice age.
Everything's going to warm up and heat up and it's going to be terrible here.
And then there are an awful, in fact a great number of scientists who are absolutely honest down the line and they'll tell you quite frankly that they don't know.
I have on the line right now, I believe it's him, Jay is that you?
Hello?
Is that you, Jay?
Yes, it is.
Can you hear me okay?
Yes, you're coming in well, thanks.
Okay, I need you to talk quite a bit louder if you can.
Okay, I'm way back in the woods.
I know.
But we've got to get you up on the level so that the listeners can hear you.
Jay has done an awful lot of research into climate change, into the so-called greenhouse effect and global warming theory and the people who say there's going to be an ice age.
And it is significant at this time to be talking about these things because the third session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, known as COP 3, will be held in Kyoto, Japan this year in December.
And it's probably one of the most important conferences on environment since the Earth For those who are concerned about what the socialist radicals are going to do, or what kind of legislation they're going to pass, in order to try to ram some type of environmental control down our throats, in order to stave off what they, in their panic, believe is a crisis on this earth, as far as weather and climate is concerned, due to what man has been doing over the years.
Jay, would you like to give a little bit of your background and sort of tell the people who you are and what you've been doing, and then we'll get into the meat of tonight's subject matter.
Okay, Bill.
I'm not a climatologist.
I do have a technical background.
I'm a marine engineer, and that's a very general type of study that I had in college.
I studied a certain amount of meteorology, astronomy, electrical engineering, and quite a bit of thermodynamics.
It was a good education, and I thank my parents and the U.S.
government for it.
But since then, I've been watching the environmental movement because I see it as a It's a way that science is being perverted into a control mechanism.
So you see it as I do, sort of a false science that's manipulatory in its application?
Yeah.
You know, it almost reminds me of... Well, it reminds me of a fellow who invented the thermometer, and that was Galileo.
And most of us probably know what happened to Galileo.
He had an idea that everybody else was wrong.
He believed that the sun was at the center of the universe, not the earth.
But the powers that be, which was the Jesuits, they didn't believe that.
He was one of the first skeptics, and he's kind of a hero of mine.
So he ended up in prison.
But he was right, and we're better off for it.
Are you still with me?
I'm here.
Okay, I can't hear any feedback there.
Well, anyway, like you were saying, the Kyoto Conference is coming up, and probably there's two different paths that it could take.
The worst path, I think, would be to basically put a lot of restrictions on people.
It would basically... One idea is to shut down industry to the level of 1990.
And that means slowing down everybody and everything.
Well, in this country, Jay, that would mean bringing back a whole bunch of industry that has been shut down since 1990.
That's not what they intend on doing.
Probably, the way it's looking, the industrialized countries will be forced to shut down.
However, it looks like the developing countries, what we call the third world, they might get an easy break.
And you can see the possibilities there.
In fact, from what I read in the proposed treaty which they will be considering in Kyoto, which
has already been written, as a matter of fact, they plan to literally almost shut down the
major industrialized nations like the United States. And the biggest target, by the way,
in the treaty is the United States of America, and will allow the development of industry
in third world nations, and they will not be put under any kind of environmental atmospheric
emissions control.
Have you noticed, have you read the same thing?
Yeah, and you see, a lot of people would think, well, empathy would never stand for that.
They have macro-lobbyism.
They would never stand for cuts.
But in the end, they're looking at the bottom line.
And people that are only looking at the bottom line, they might be far off that way.
They might accept the idea, well, we can just go and do it down the street.
Sure, it's no skin off our back because we can move our factories and our assembly lines to a third world country and it will actually be cheaper for us to operate and we'll make more profit because we're not going to have the tremendous overhead and regulation and insurance problems and medical plans and retirement things and labor is cheap.
Well, let's get into the scientific end of this thing.
We sort of started, and that's my fault, at the end, and that's where this thing is going, to this conference in Kyoto in December.
How did we get to this panic point where there are people in the world who believe that we're in such a crisis that drastic measures must be taken in order to cure it?
Is this thing real?
Well, it depends on where you stand.
If you look at our climate, it's a very complicated situation, and it's doubtful if we will... Well, at this point, I cannot imagine that we'll ever completely understand it.
There's so many variables.
I can't imagine that scientists back in the late 60s and early 70s would look at the sunspots and the pattern of sunspots as signifying that the sun was dying and reaching a conclusion from that, based upon the period of years that have gone by since the last ice age, that we're going into an ice age.
But the overall pattern of temperature change, when the temperature is measured in rural areas around the world, does show a slight decrease in temperature overall, and not this great global warming phenomenon that everybody's in such a panic about.
Well, it's true.
Probably what you're referring to is the Earth-Island effect, or the urban-island effect, and that If you do look at the newest way of measuring temperature,
which is the satellite, which is a 17-year record, not that long, but it does show that
there's no significant increase in temperature.
It's not that long, but it does show that there's no significant increase in temperature.
It's a good thing.
It's interesting that they very seldom cite that figure.
And this is something most people don't even know about, that there are temperature records recorded by satellite.
But one thing I want to ask, based upon the tremendous deceptions that NASA and the people in charge of the things that we put up there have practiced in the past, how can we rely upon what they tell us?
That's your possibility.
What, that we can rely on them or not rely on them?
There's a possibility in there.
And anywhere, I guess, you may want to take a look, though, at the long-term records, which is harder, probably, for anybody to dispute.
There are ways of disputing just about all of this.
You know, in fact, this whole global warming I hear it called a theory, and actually they've changed quite a bit.
They're actually not calling it global warming that much anymore.
The new word is climate change.
You've heard that?
Yes, I have.
That's starting to creep into it.
They're not quite as adamant about global warming as they used to be.
Well, I think that's because there have been so many prominent scientists and so many people
whose credentials are just absolutely stunning, telling us that this is just a bunch of hooey,
that there's nothing to it at all.
There was a recent situation in Germany, right in Germany, at the university there, and 100
climatologists came out and cried the paper.
They said that there was absolutely no way that they could be sure that there was a human influence in warning.
It does look like a primatist warning.
It does.
If you look over the last hundred years or so... Based upon what?
That would be all the ground levels.
Mostly, these are in the Northern Hemisphere, too, by the way.
The Southern Hemisphere is mostly ocean.
The Southern Hemisphere is not as developed.
Most of the old temperature readings, especially, that you could have much reliability, they're in the Northern Hemisphere.
In England, for instance, they go back to the 1860s.
They're fairly accurate.
However, when all these articles, when the global warming theorists come up with an article, they'll always say, within the last 100 years.
Why do you think they say that?
I have no idea.
Why do they?
Well, the reason why they quote this half a degree increase or one degree increase, it varies according to who you listen to.
The reason why they say within the last 100 years is because prior to the last 100 years, the sun was in a very weak status.
Solar activity had been down and The Earth was actually experiencing a little ice age.
Have you heard of that one?
Yes.
Okay, well, that was during the 1450s to 1850s, more or less.
The dates vary because it wasn't like falling off a cliff into temperature, and it wasn't jumping up to a high temperature.
It has its peak and it has its low, but it takes a little while.
It's caused a lot of confusion with some Americans who study history and read the Pilgrim's accounts
in the first settlements on the east coast of the United States of the terrible, bitter,
cold winters that people don't experience today.
Yes, and why do you think Greenland is called Greenland?
Well, I know why, because at one time it was green and verdant and beautiful, and there was a thriving colony there that just disappeared off the face of the earth, as a matter of fact.
That's right, and so what we have is cycles.
The planet actually goes in cycles.
And these are normal, aren't they, Jay?
Yeah.
We've got cycles which tend to run according to the output of the Sun.
That varies, of course.
It's got its quirks and squiggles that nobody can explain.
And it's not just based upon the output of the Sun.
There's a whole bunch of other It really can, and it really has to be, because where do we get from the Earth?
There's only one price, and that's from the Sun.
And it really has to be, because where do we get the sun from the Earth?
There's only one price, and that's from the sun.
So when the sun gets stronger, the Earth's climate generally gets warmer.
Now, even though we don't have this quite so accurate of a temperature reading,
we have some very accurate records of sunspots.
Bye.
Astronomers have been studying sunspots for a long time, and there's other ways that they can infer the sunspot cycle, even going back Back through history using ice cores and tree rings and sediments and so on.
But it really does come down to the sun and well we know that there's a lot of people that believe and think a lot about the sun don't we?
Oh yeah.
In fact, the sun, for all intents and purposes, is the representation, or the exoteric representation of their God.
And so, it's tremendously important to them, and quite frankly, they're the people who And I don't mean to put the common man down, but if you're talking about leadership and people who have influence to get things done in the world, they are the most important group of people in that particular aspect.
Yeah.
Because they're in charge.
At least right now.
I believe so.
Well, anyway, the climate does cycle, and I was speaking of sunspot cycles, but that's not the only thing that cycles.
Of course, we know that we have sunseasons, and that's not necessarily related to the intensity of the sun by the sun's rotation of the Earth around the solar system.
There's different sunseasons.
That's on a short basis.
Of course, day and night, that's a cycle.
And even the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is not always consistent.
It's believed that that has quite a bit to do with the onset of high stages also.
Over a long period of time, the Earth's orbit does change.
It becomes more circular or more elliptical.
And what would cause something like that to happen?
It's the influence of the other planets.
Okay.
Our Venus, Mars, etc.
Now, folks, you all know that I've done broadcasts on all of this stuff many times before.
And I know a lot of the answers to these, so you're probably scratching your head, well why did he ask that when, you know, he's done this before?
It's because Jay is the guest, folks, and I'm trying to get the information that we need from Jay without, you know, this is not my, this is not my broadcast tonight, it's Jay's.
I'm just, when you hear me, I'm going to be asking questions or trying to get Jay to elaborate on certain things so that, so that the information will come out.
Now, Jay, we know that the weather has changed quite a bit over the years, during my lifetime at least.
I don't really know how old you are.
I'm not going to ask you on the radio because you may not want to tell anybody, but I'm 54 years old.
I don't know what that means, but anyway, over the period of my lifetime that I can
Anyway, over the period of my lifetime, I can remember weather has really become extreme
and more unpredictable than it ever has been before.
The amount of rainfall and floods and catastrophes that are happening because of the weather,
I can't remember anything like that happening in my lifetime at all, except maybe once a
year somewhere in the world there would be some huge hurricane that would wipe out some
island or cause a tsunami in Japan or something like that.
but nothing like what's been happening in this country and all around the world.
But nothing like what's been happening in this country and all around the world.
They're telling us that El Nino is the worst that it's ever been in its measurable history
They're telling us that El Nino is the worst that it's ever been in its measurable history
this year.
this year.
And where I live here, we never had a summer.
Where I live here, we never had a summer.
It was spring and spring and spring and spring and lots of monsoons, moisture coming up from
the Gulf of Baja and lots of rainfall here.
Now the trees are already turning their leaves, getting ready for winter.
The old timers here are telling me that it's going to be probably the worst winter that
we've ever had based upon their knowledge of what all these things mean in their lifetime.
I haven't lived here all my life, so I don't know if they're right or not.
But there really is something to this farmer's almanac and folk weather predicting stuff
because I've watched the overall predictability of it over the years is pretty high.
Much better than the weatherman was until he had satellite photographs and computer databases to work with.
Now the weatherman is getting pretty accurate.
But what does all this mean?
We just had a tremendous typhoon.
They're calling it a hurricane on television, and I guess they don't know that in the Pacific
there are typhoons and in the Atlantic there are hurricanes.
But we just had a tremendous tropical storm hit the coast of Mexico, and a lot of that
moisture is going to come up into Southern California and Arizona and New Mexico and
possibly South Texas before it's all over with and cause tremendous damages.
And they're talking on television that nobody ever heard of a hurricane hitting the West
Coast, and that's really not true because we know that's happened back in history.
But what does all this mean?
you Well, Bill, I don't know that I necessarily agree with that.
With what?
With more and worse weather or more unpredictable weather.
I've been doing a little research on historic weather events, and if you go on the Internet, The NOAA, which is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, that's the abbreviation for this NOAA, they will tell you the historic weather events of the current days.
And they've got every day of the year in there.
And so when I'm sparring with some opponents regarding weather, They'll put on, well, South America had the hottest day ever.
Well, I'll look back at history from 1926 and Morocco was 136 degrees in the shade.
Or 1989, this time of the year, Montana had a foot of snow.
degrees in the shade or 1989 this time of the year Montana had a foot of snow, Colorado had some snow.
So...
I think you missed what I was trying to get at.
I didn't mean that it was the worst weather ever in the history of the world.
What I meant is it seems to be more predictable and there seems to be more of it happening more often now than has happened in my memory in my lifetime.
I'm not going by OSHA records.
I'm going by my memory in my lifetime.
For instance, the tremendous floods that we've had in the last few years through the Midwest of this country, and the tremendous damage that these floods have done, have certainly happened in the past, and on several occasions in the past, but not so many altogether all at once in such a close period of time frame.
Well, do you think the media is able to report it better than they used to?
Well, I don't know.
I think that kind of thing would have made the news in this country, at least, whether or not the media could report it adequately, because that's the kind of thing that people are always interested in.
Well, it's true.
Everybody talks about the weather.
Yeah.
But I do notice that any little, any disaster or weather rise, they have them pointing the finger at global warming.
Well, you're correct on that, and you're also right in another respect, in another aspect, is that they are better at reporting disasters.
The news has gone from balanced reporting of good and bad news to all bad all the time, and whenever it seems like it's something that could be the hand of God, I mean, they really dwell on things that That really shouldn't be dwelled upon.
It also brings up in people's minds the traditions of the Book of Revelations and makes them adamantly believe that the end of the world is near.
And that's one of the things that this New World Order wants people to believe so that they won't oppose They're bringing it about.
So the more disasters and the more catastrophes and the more things like that they can throw at us, the more helpless people feel to be able to deal with any kind of problem in the face of all of that.
So I think there's more to it than just reporting the weather.
I think there's all kinds of things that enter into these Let's get back to the scientific aspect of this.
When I talk to scientists, and I think I would have to disagree with your assumption that
it's getting warmer based upon temperature measurements, because you said something earlier
in this broadcast that I found to be very true, is that where they used to be measuring
the temperature in small villages or hamlets or in rural areas, they now have grown up
around these areas, a tremendous population of people, and those are no longer pristine,
what you might call pristine temperature measurements.
Most of the scientists that I talk to tell me that they really don't know which way the
weather is going, but if they had to make a guess, there's going to be a slight cooling,
but nothing that's going, and this is exactly what they tell me, nothing that's going to
affect the average everyday life of anybody in this world.
But when I check with the measurements of glaciation that's going on, I find that the glaciers are getting larger instead of
smaller, as these people are trying to scare us with, that all the glaciers are melting and
that there's going to be a rise in the sea level and low-lying islands are going to
disappear and all of this kind of...
So what kind of actual scientific data do we have that scientists are willing to stand
up and say is true?
Is there a division in the scientific community that's significant?
Or is there one side of the scientific community that outbalances the other side?
What is happening there?
Well, as far as the official party line, which doesn't generally come from the United Nations,
They are claiming to have a consensus that global warming, the balance of evidence, suggests a discernible human influence on the climate.
That's basically their take on it.
Okay, and I can see over the years, without checking anything, that it is possible that human activity has had an effect on the climate.
But how much of an effect, and what does it mean for our future, if there really is an effect?
I mean, if we're chopping down rainforests, and we're building factories that are spewing all kinds of gases into the atmosphere, isn't it possible that we are having some kind of an effect on the atmosphere?
Yes, it's possible.
And that's the real problem, is to decide how much and where it's going.
What we have is we have natural fluctuations and we have possible man-made fluctuations.
Now, you would generally think that the man-made fluctuation would be steady and increasing all the time.
The natural variation would be superimposed on top of that.
Or vice versa.
We would be safe both together.
And the problem with it is that the things that make up our climate are so complicated.
The only way that they can even begin to predict is by making a computer model.
We know about computer models, don't we?
Let me give you an instance that I just read about, since I wrote the paper.
On this computer model, basically what they're doing, they started off with a one-dimensional model, which is the Flat Earth Theory.
Well, that thing was obviously not going to work the way the Earth does.
As computers got a little better, they were able to get to three dimensions.
What they do is, they take the surface of the Earth, And they chop it up into little manageable cubes.
Well, a cube in itself is not actually part of the sphere either, unless you made it really, really small.
But when they represent a cloud in that cube of our Earth's atmosphere, A cloud itself, if you look at a cloud, you can look at one and one looks like a sheep, one looks like a goat, one looks like the ocean waves.
But what they use is a flat icing on a cake.
It's a plane, it's flat, and it's homogenous, which means it's the same thickness from the top to the bottom.
It's also generally in a square or some sort of percentage of the block of atmosphere.
So what we're looking at is very imperfect.
There's no way man could build a swallow or a bumblebee and make it work.
And the computer model is just as fallible.
Oh, but Charlene McLean says she's God.
I'm sure she could do it.
Well, there is a certain element of religion that has to enter in here.
I think some of these people have to be pretty much true believers to say some of the things they say.
Yes, and that's exactly the point I wanted you to get to.
Why don't you expound upon that, because I think it's extremely important that this whole global warming thing actually takes on the aspect of a religion in many ways.
Well, I could talk about the Gaia hypothesis, and that is becoming a very interesting subject.
Gaia is the name of a Greek myth.
I believe Gaia was the Earth's mother goddess symbol, and some people believe that the Earth is basically a living organism.
There's a cult-like mentality that's developed about that.
Well, this is, in fact, the old mystery religion of Babylon.
That all things, even inanimate objects, rocks and dirt and trees and all of these things, are part of the cycle of reincarnation of the soul.
And that you have to move your way up within these different things doing, of course, your proper part while you're in these things so that you can move up on the evolutionary scale of development.
Yes, and there's where we can see that it's not only just a politicization of science.
It's religion, almost.
It goes back almost to the same situation as Galileo, because he had a theory which was counter to the religion of the day, and He certainly did.
The biggest problem he had was that he was right, and some of the powers that be knew that he was right but could never admit it because it meant that their whole theology was wrong, and that they were afraid that the whole church would come tumbling down if they admitted that they were wrong because the Pope had said that everything revolves around the earth.
The earth is the center of the universe because God made the earth and put man on it, and man was the whole object of the whole exercise.
And the Pope was said to be speaking for Jesus Christ and God on this earth and was, in fact, infallible.
So what Galileo did was a threat to the existing power and could have caused the entire collapse of the theocracy that ruled at that time.
It was like somebody had pointed a hydrogen bomb at Washington, D.C.
And, of course, the Pope reacted in the same manner that Washington, D.C.
would have reacted if someone had done that or threatened it.
Well, there certainly is a certain aspect of religion in there, and I'm sure that, well, most people don't have contact, but I do have contact with them, because I've been watching what they're doing and listening to what they talk about.
Contact with who, Jerry?
People that call themselves Gaia.
Okay.
And I'm doing this for research purposes.
I'm definitely not a guy.
I'm a human.
But a lot of these people believe that they're just a... Well, as you said, a rock is no less important than a human.
Yes.
And basically, if we haven't gotten any further than that, Big trouble, huh?
Because this is going backwards, actually.
Jay, what kind of... Let me get back to this again because you still haven't answered it.
This is about my fourth attempt.
What kind of division, if any, is there in the real, credible scientific community?
Well, there is... what I've found was that most of the scientists who are in... who are
aligned with the university or with government, because that's who funds it in general.
And anybody who gives grants, government aid, United Nations money?
At least some of them have to have a bias.
Now, some of them won't.
For that purpose, what the scientific community has done in order to rule out falsehood within their ranks, science has established a peer review process.
What that means is when you publish a result of an experiment, then everybody takes a good look at it.
And that's supposed to police the ranks and make everybody honest.
Does it work?
It doesn't always work.
History will tell you that there was a fellow who thought he had a kilt-down man, a missing link.
Well, it turned out it was just some skull that had something to do with it.
And the United Nations has established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
That's called the IPCC.
And they are probably the most influential group of scientists.
They are backing a consensus that there is global warming.
The opposing side, which basically are skeptical of that position, They are mostly backed by industry, so we've got a problem that it looks like there's vested interest on each side, and that's probably not so bad.
I think that's probably... probably the truth will be found somewhere in between those two extremes.
But aren't these the same people, Jay, that told us that there's... that the... that the That there's an ozone layer, when really there's not.
There's an ionosphere.
And who told us that in this ozone layer that doesn't exist, there are holes that are being ripped in the ozone layer by CFCs and such as that.
And we found that that's one of the biggest hoaxes that's ever been perpetrated.
It's just not true.
Aren't these the very same people who tried to pull that scam?
And in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, are you still telling us there's ozone holes?
And that we're all in danger of being fried by the ultraviolet radiation of the sun, which is going to sneak in through these holes and cause us all to catch cancer and all of these terrible doomsday scenario things?
Well, it's true.
Some of those are the same people.
In fact, the new head of the UN panel on climate change, his name is Walter.
He has, Dr. Robert T. Watson, he is currently the senior advisor for the World Bank.
But prior to that, he was the head of the Montreal Protocol group, which pushed the ozone treaty through.
And that concerns me because we know that the Senate did vote for the ozone protocol,
and I'm not so sure they won't vote for the global warming protocol.
But if you'll remember, in that instance, industry was also on the side of the ozone protocol.
Well, they saw a way to make profit off of it, didn't they?
I'm not so sure.
The same thing isn't happening now.
Yes, but when you get industry on the side of somebody who's trying to shut you down, you have to look for a motivation there because it is not a natural or normal thing for someone to stand up and support someone who says you've got to shut your business down.
The only industry that's really to the forefront that I know of is British Petroleum.
And I can't exactly tell you why.
Maybe they have a way to make some money off the deal.
But they are going along with the European Union's proposal to cut emissions back to 90% level.
Uh-huh.
Well, you know, Jay, that really isn't a whole lot, to tell you the truth.
1990 levels compared to 1997 levels in some places, such as the United States, were higher in 1990 than they are today.
We've lost a lot of our industry.
We're through.
I'm not sure exactly how that would work out.
I haven't seen much figures on In this country, it has been proven, in fact, William Jefferson Clinton himself, the President of the United States, has presented the American people and the people of the world with the figures saying, hey, see what I've done while I've been President?
We've lowered our overall carbon dioxide emissions and our pollution and lowered the incidence of this and that and so on and so forth.
And if that's true, then who cares if we go back to 1990 standards?
Well, to tell you the truth, Bill, I've worked in oil refining and I've worked quite a few years in the oil refining business and in power plants.
And I don't like using that fuel myself.
I really don't.
I would love to see a new industry develop.
Well, I think we would all like to see that.
And I agree with you.
I don't like the fumes of just a bus that passes by or an 18-wheeler is noxious to me.
But what I don't like about all of this is not the fact that they want to roll it back to 1990 standards, but the fact that some world body wants to tell me in the state of Arizona what I can and cannot do.
And I have no say in the matter.
That bothers me.
You know what I think about freedom?
And if I have input into it, and my representatives or whatever listen to me, and everybody in my state has input, and we have a vote that will take care of our particular state, and we decide we want to do it or don't do it, that's fine with me.
But when somebody meets in Kyoto, Japan, from Afghanistan, and Argentina, and South America, or South Africa, I say, no, you don't have any right to tell me what I can do in Arizona, and I don't give a darn if we're affecting your atmosphere or not.
It's just, you have no, absolutely no right to do that, period.
There's not a world government yet, although...
Although it wouldn't take much to topple us right into it, I've got to tell you that.
And this is just, in my estimation, another effort toward that end.
To give some governing body the power over the atmosphere of every nation in the world.
It's another loss of sovereignty of the people who live in one particular spot on the world.
What do you think about that?
Well, the environmentalists, they talk about the global carbon.
That's a big word that they use a lot.
But it's not the global commons.
I know what you're talking about.
The atmosphere belongs to everybody.
Today you might be breathing air that tomorrow might be in England because the wind is blowing that way or something like that.
Or the water that you pollute in America or South America goes into the ocean and pollutes the ocean and we catch the fish and eat it and we die.
Right?
That's basically what they're talking about.
Yes.
That's what they mean by global commerce.
But you see, they're askance on that because the representation of the people around the world is not according to the demographic population of the area that is participating in this.
Somebody who comes from a little country that only has 50,000 people has an equal vote with a country that has 260 million people, and that sucks!
Yeah, and not only that, the representatives sent to that meeting, how far are they away from the people that they're supposedly representing?
Quite a bit away, and many of them don't even represent people, but represent organizations and businesses.
Well, that's true.
At the Kyoto Conference, there's going to be all sorts of meetings of NGOs, and that stands for non-governmental organizations.
That's correct.
And they're usually fanatical in their belief systems.
Yeah, it's interesting who all is represented in amongst the NGOs, and also who runs them, who controls them, and what type of power they have.
Generally, they have parallel meetings with the people who actually sign the paperwork.
What I've discovered, Jay, is that these NGO organizations are non-governmental organizations.
Actually have more money and more power than the entire United Nations body as a governmental rural organization has or can wield at any time.
Well, generally a lot of them do get their money from foundations.
They're foundation backed or they've had endowments and become a, had trusts, trusts formed.
A lot of them developed some pretty big bankrolls, that's for sure.
Without a doubt.
So what is this going to take us?
What are they going to do at Kyoto?
Why is it important to us?
As we go into the end of this broadcast, why don't you just sort of round up what we've talked about and tell us What this Kyoto meeting means to us, how it can affect us as Americans, and what we need to do to make our voices heard, if we can at all.
I don't think that we can, but you may have a different opinion on that.
Well, my idea on this, of course, and I think I explained it, is that they plan to ask all countries, or at least some countries, to stabilize Okay, I've got to break in here because their stated purpose is different from what they have already written and prepared as a treaty that will be introduced for adoption at the Kyoto meeting.
It's already been done.
And in that treaty, What they basically want to do is completely different from what they're saying.
What they want to do is completely shut down industry, all industry, in the United States and relegate us to a service-oriented country and some of the other major industrial nations of the world.
And they want to take any limitations off of third world countries and give them free reign to develop an industrial base and bring their people up Well, we'll have to see what the final treaty looks like.
And, of course, that has to pass through the Senate.
Well, we'll have to see what the final treaty looks like.
And of course, that has to pass through the Senate, which, well, I have to say that it's
supposed to pass through the Senate.
Now, as you may know, our representatives have signed a number of treaties with the
Senate, like the Fowler University Treaty, and the Senate has not ratified those treaties.
However, through executive action, a lot of this is being done already.
Now, I'm not sure how far you can go, as far as taxes go, but, um, you can't, uh, I mean, Oh, that's another thing that's in the treaty, the power to levy taxes on the nations that adopt this treaty in order to support the effort to lower the emissions into the atmosphere around the world.
Well, as I recall, actual taxes generally have to be approved by Congress, so I guess our only hope, I don't see that we'll enforce anything at Kyoto other than maybe public opinion.
Uh-huh.
This battle will be in the U.S.
Senate, and possibly if the U.S.
Senate votes it down, it might fall apart worldwide.
That's a possibility.
Well, none of these other things have fallen apart worldwide.
The signatory nations who have adopted the treaties without the United States' participation have just gone on without us.
I think we may be the linchpin.
Well, there's no question about that.
We're the linchpin in a lot of things.
We're the linchpin in the New World Order, as a matter of fact.
And we're the linchpin in just about everything, because we are.
Excuse me, we are.
I had to turn down the pot there and sneeze, folks.
That's why the sound was dead.
I didn't want to see you through your radio and pollute your living room, or wherever you're at.
So it boils down to what can we do?
Please, we can't do much other than work on this in it.
That's about all I can say, or at least try to influence public opinion where we can.
And that's what I've been trying to do.
I want to thank you, Jay, for being the guest.
We're out of time.
I want to thank you for all the research you've done and the input and the availability of what you've learned tonight for our listening audience.
I think that you've made some of this a lot clearer to a lot of folks, and I appreciate that, and I know a lot of other people do.
Well, thank you very much, Bill.
And we'll see you some other time.
All right.
I sure hope so.
Good night.
Good night.
OK, folks, I happen to know that the United Nations sort of has a stranglehold on all of those who have adopted the United Nations Charter and all of the conventions and treaties and everything that have followed since that has happened.
And technically speaking, the New World Order already exists.
The only thing that they haven't been able to do is get all the people who have the power to resist it or overthrow it or stop it in its tracks to accept it or believe in it.
And most of those people, believe it or not, are right here in the United States of America And also, believe it or not, there's a significant portion of people in what used to be called the Soviet Union who aren't going for a lot of this stuff, either.
And I told you years ago that that would happen, because the Communists weren't world government, but the people of the Communist nations are like the people in the United States of America.
There are the high-up, elitist, muckety-mucks in this country who want world government, but most Americans would rather, uh-uh, do without.
And so, that's it for tonight, folks.
Good night, and God bless each and every single one of you.
Let's put Jay on the train in the rain.
On the train in the rain, Jay.
Taking down to the railroad depot and seeing off with this global warming.
Uh-oh.
Oh boy, that was close.
I'm going to stand over here under the overhang on this shed.
You guys stand wherever you want.
I see the train's a little late, but it'll be here in a few minutes, Jay.
to work.
Ah, there's that bell again.
Ah, there's that bell again.
you You know what?
This rain is pretty cold.
I don't think it's tropical at all.
I think it's the beginning of the ice age.
Oh my goodness!
A great big hot drop just hit me on the back of the neck.
Maybe it is global warming.
This puddle I'm standing in does sort of look warm.
I'm really getting confused.
Hey, what's that up in the sky?
I...
You're free, Jay.
I'm free.
You're free.
you you
You see the hole in those clouds that just seems to go right up into space?
What is that?
The what?
The ozone hole?
What?
The ozone hole?
Oh, come on.
Okay, get ready, Jay.
The train's going to stop right here in front of us.
No, you don't have to run to catch it.
It's going to stop.
Don't worry.
Believe me.
Oh, and by the way, I don't think that's an open hole.
I think that's God's window where he sits up there and sort of watches us and laughs.
I bet he gets a good laugh out of all of us.
There you go, buddy.
What car do you have?
Number 22?
Okay, watch for car number 22.
There it is.
I see it.
Did I tell you?
It's going to stop right in front of us.
Hey, hey.
Well, see you next time, Jay.
Take care.
Hope you can attend next year's conference in May.
adios amigos.
I'm going to be doing a little bit of a walkthrough of the game.
You're listening to the World Wide Freedom Radio Network.
you Stand by now for only, most of the time, plastic radio like you always wished it could be.
▲
Export Selection