Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Index of Progressive, Liberal, & Fascist studies
Here's an extended list of reading links on Liberalism(the Real Kind), Progressivism, and its offspring, Fascism. This obviously cannot be digested in one, or even several sittings. Its quite extensive, and shows why the America Progressive movement is alive and well in America, but just under another coat as camouflage. And that needs to be halted forthwith, because it is a Huge Lie.

Index of Liberal Studies

Bill Whittle: "You're Not A Liberal" :

A Plea Regarding the word ‘Liberal' :

I Liberal: In the Linguistically Challenged United States, the Word "Liberal" Is Misunderstood:

Classic Liberalism:

Can Classical Liberals Take the Word Liberal Back From the Statists?:

What Is Classical Liberalism? :

Now That Hillary Clinton Has Dismissed 'Liberalism', Can Conservatives Take It Back? :

Liberals Verses Statist "Liberals" - 1961:

It's Liberalism Day -- Real Liberalism, Not The Phony, Authoritarian Kind:

Milton Friedman on Classical Liberalism:

Milton Friedman - Conservatism, True Liberalism and Modern Liberalism:

Why Milton Friedman is Not a Hollywood Liberal:

Illiberal Progressives :

Does Capitalism Exploit Workers? - Learn Liberty :

The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism:

The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 1) | Learn Liberty:

The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 2) | Learn Liberty:

The History of Liberalism:

Liberalism and Capitalism:

The Culture of Classical Liberalism:


Contending With Hayek: On Liberalism, Spontaneous Order and the Post-Communist Societies in Transition:]

Liberalism, by Ludwig von Mises (1927) - The Complete Work:

A Call To Liberalism:

The Moral Basis of Economic Liberty

Index of Progressive and Fascist Studies

A Brief History of Progressivism

The Mystery of Fascism - Or here -

Fascism, by Sheldon Richman -

The American Roots of Fascism: The American "Progressives" were the first Fascists of the 20th century:

Capitalism, Corporatism, and the Freed Market, by SHELDON RICHMAN -

Blaming Capitalism for Corporatism -

Progressivism: How Many Steps Forward This Time?

Stimulating Our Way to Depression -

The Legacy of Progressivism -

The Progressive Era’s Derailment of Classical-Liberal Evolution -

The Evils of Cronyism -

Progressive Era Eugenics -

Eugenics: Progressivism’s Ultimate Social Engineering -

What Is A Progressive? -


Progressivism -

American Progressivism -

The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics -



The Easter Mythology of Modern Progressivism -

Progressive, Or Leftist? -


A documentary on eugenics and genocide -

The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Plan for Black Americans -

I'm also trying to gather together my far flung list of essays, topics, and videos, that accurately define the true meaning of "Liberal" and why it is so important to understand the terrible lie that has been perpetuated for over the last 80 years.

Famous Quotes:

.jpg   Democracy id Also a form of Wordhip.jpg (Size: 11.92 KB / Downloads: 179)


.jpg   Bachelors know more about women than married men.jpg (Size: 9.28 KB / Downloads: 179)


.jpg   A Cynic is a Man Who,.jpg (Size: 12 KB / Downloads: 208)

More Saved Quotes



.gif   Government the Great Fiction.gif (Size: 24.05 KB / Downloads: 172)



Famous Quotes cont.






Famous Quotes Cont.

[Image: what-is-a-cynic-a-man-who-knows-the-pric...uote-1.jpg]




First Peoples - Europe | PBS NOVA

BBC Planet of the Apemen Battle for Earth 1of2 Homo Erectus

Attached Files Thumbnail(s)




Attached Files Thumbnail(s)





How about this?
Fritz Vahrenholt

1.   It’s the sun, stupid!

Fritz Vahrenholt

For many of us the term ‘climate change’ stirs strong emotions. The string of catastrophe reports coming from the media seems endless. Every month we hear or see news of another disturbing climate record. Carbon dioxide produced by mankind is dramatically changing the climate, we are told. Unprecedented temperature extremes, storms, floods, widespread death and a slew of other horrors are said to be imminent. If we fail to apply the emergency brake now, and hard, then the climate will be irreparably damaged and there will be little hope of averting the approaching cataclysm. In just a few more years it may be too late, we are constantly warned. We are also told that the measures proposed for averting disaster are costly, very costly, but that the anticipated damage from climate change will be even more expensive, so there is no alternative but to act quickly and decisively. Politicians have come under pressure. Based on a chorus of dire warnings, laws for changing the direction society is taking have been enacted and billion-dollar decisions have been made.

There’s no question about the general thrust. Eventually, we are going to have to utilize energy more efficiently and we shall need new technologies to replace much of our finite supplies of oil, gas and coal. Renewables will become one of the main pillars of our energy supply. However, the crucial question remains: How much time do we really have to carry out a comprehensive transformation of society?

The key to answering this question can be found in the climate sciences. It boils down to solving the problem of determining what share of the observed climate change has been truly caused by human activity and how much is due to natural factors. Meanwhile, the world seems to have split into two camps: those who are convinced mankind is significantly changing the climate through emissions of industrial CO2 and those who see natural fluctuations at work. In the heat of the debate, the fact that nature is rarely a black-and-white picture is often lost. In reality, there are many indications that show our sun plays a more important role than CO2 in the climate and that at times they may be mutually enhancing, and at times can offset each other.

Very different reasons compelled us to examine the sun and other natural events as the possible triggers for climate fluctuations. Sebastian Lüning is a geoscientist who has spent almost 20 years of his working life studying the climate and the earth’s history. Time and again he has asked himself: Why is it that natural forces were able to dominate climate events in the past, but today they are believed to have become practically impotent? Is this a realistic assumption?

In December 2009 Fritz Vahrenholt, an energy expert, was asked by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to review the draft of a renewable energy report. I (Vahrenholt) found 293 errors and deficiencies in the 1000-page report, and then found at an IPCC meeting of experts held in Washington on 1 February 2010 that my remarks met no objection. So I asked myself: Could it be that a similar superficial and flawed approach had been taken to the topic of climate change? I am not a climate scientist, but I do have a comprehensive, in-depth knowledge of the renewable energy sector. Up to that point I had trusted the IPCC’s pronouncements on climate protection. Taking such an unscientific approach to the main issue of climate as had been taken to the report on renewable energies would have been absolutely unthinkable to me. Up to that point, I had trusted all IPCC reports and never doubted the recommendations based on them.

But signs of deficits and deficiencies with the consensus finding process of the IPCC climate report started piling up. First, the warning that Himalayan glaciers would melt completely by 2035 was an alarming statement in the 2007 IPCC report. However, that claim had never been confirmed by studies from the Indian Ministry of Environment. IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri initially called the results ‘voodoo science’, before lamely admitting 2 years later that the 2035 glacier melting claim originated from a telephone interview with a scientist, Syed Hasnain, who said the statement was intended as pure speculation. This telephone interview was quoted by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the claim found its way into the 2007 report. Pachauri finally expressed his regret over the blunder in January 2010.

My uncertainty only grew after the Climategate scandal, when thousands of emails were made public and gave the impression that a crucial temperature data series from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) had been changed to depict a growing warming trend. The CRU data series had been used prominently by the IPCC. CRU’s head, Phil Jones, denied every irregularity, but resigned during the ensuing investigation. Subsequent investigations confirmed that infractions of the scientific obligation to make data available to other scientists had been committed, but threw out the charges of manipulation. My suspicions were aroused by all of these incidents. This left me with no choice but to take a much deeper look into climate science itself, and especially examine alternative scientific views that had failed to find their way into the official reports.

The second factor that compelled me to take a closer look at the sun and other natural impacts on climate came from within my own company. In early 2008 I had been appointed managing director of RWE Innogy. For decades RWE had failed to invest in renewable energy. As Europe’s fifth largest power provider, the lion’s share of RWE’s power had been produced by burning lignite and anthracite coal. With the European emissions trading certificates looming, it was clear that from 2013, unless it reduced its CO2 emissions, RWE would have to cough up billions of euros over the long term. The new chairman, Jürgen Grossmann, decided to cut the company’s CO2 emissions by implementing an ambitious investment programme in renewable energies, in addition to replacing older power plants with newer, more efficient coal-and gas-fired plants, and extending the operating lifetimes of its nuclear plants. From that point on approximately 1.2 billion euros a year were invested in wind, biomass and hydroelectric power plants. A respectable portfolio resulted after just 3 years: over 2300 megawatts of renewable power capacity is now online.
However, much to our surprise, the outputs from the wind power plants ended up falling far short of our expectations because the wind during the winters simply failed to materialize. In 2009 winds were down 10 per cent, in 2010 they were down a whopping 20 per cent, and in 2011 about 10 per cent. We discovered that across all the northern European countries (Britain, the Netherlands and Poland), the wind had simply taken a break. For years I had been chairman of a wind power company, REpower Systems AG, and so I was familiar with the unpredictability of the wind. However, such a widespread, multi-year fluctuation was completely unprecedented. Was this the first sign of climate change, brought about by anthropogenic global warming? Were the wind patterns of Europe changing permanently? This had to be investigated because we intended to invest up to another 5 billion euros in onshore and offshore wind parks over the next 5 years. In fact, we were planning to become one of the largest offshore investors in the North Sea, and so we had to be certain that the turbine-driving winds would not peter out. This scenario was nowhere to be found in the official IPCC statements.

One day I happened by chance to come across a paper by Michael Lockwood on the connection between cold winters and solar radiation [1]. I was completely absorbed! We always knew that whenever we had a stubborn system of cold easterly winds in the winter, the wind park yields would drop dramatically. On the other hand, strong westerly winds blowing in from the Atlantic provided enough energy to power the wind parks to near full capacity.

In Europe, whether westerly winds or easterly winds prevail depends in large part on the atmospheric pressure difference between Greenland and the Azores. This is known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). A positive NAO means there is a large difference between both pressure systems (a powerful Icelandic low and a powerful Azores high), a negative NAO means there is a weak difference (a weak Icelandic low and a weak Azores high). With a negative NAO, the powerful westerly winds are driven to the south and the weaker Siberian-influenced easterly wind systems make their way across northern Europe more frequently, thus making winters there colder and less windy (Figure 1.1).


Figure 1.1 Annual energy production in Germany is closely coupled with the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). The NAO is a naturally occurring climate oscillation which appears to be influenced by solar activity.

But what is it that drives the NAO? Lockwood provided the decisive clue to solving this riddle. He linked the NAO and the British winter temperatures to solar activity. He determined that solar activity had strongly diminished at the end of the last decade and was able establish a statistically strong correlation between solar activity, the NAO and how cold British winters were [1]. I was stunned by his conclusion: despite global warming, Britain and Europe would have to reckon with cold winters in the near future [1–2]. The physical processes involved have meanwhile been successfully simulated in climate models [3–4].

In Lockwood’s paper I read for the first time how the 11-year solar cycle had an impact on our weather and climate. I turned to sunspots next and came across more surprising relationships between solar activity and climatic change, both in the earth’s history and mankind’s recent history. I found relationships the IPCC had not reported – for example, that there is a 210-year (Suess/de Vries) cycle, an 87-year (Gleissberg) cycle and an 11-year (Schwabe) cycle with which solar activity oscillated. I was also surprised to learn that there is a scientific consensus on the fact that these cycles had an impact on climate development in the past – along with volcanic events and the 100,000-year Milankovitch cycles, which triggered the huge ices ages and warm interglacials.

The more I delved into the literature, the more obvious became the discrepancy between my knowledge and what I had shown as the ‘hockey stick’ in my presentations over the years. The hockey stick is a temperature reconstruction that depicts almost 900 years of relatively subdued temperature change from AD 1000 to 1900, followed by a sharp warming over the last century (Figure 1.2). During my time as an environmental senator, as a manager for Shell for renewable energies, as chairman of REpower Systems and as RWE Innogy CEO, I demonstrated the exceptional features of the warming since the middle of the twentieth century in hundreds of presentations, speeches and conferences.

I used Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ even though I should have known that relatively warm eleventh-century Greenland was not called ‘green’ for no reason and that the Little Ice Age depicted in Pieter Bruegel’s paintings were familiar. In the meantime, a series of studies has been published that show the Medieval Warm Period around the year AD 1000 had a similar temperature level to today’s and that the Little Ice Age of the sixteenth century was about 1° C cooler than today [5].


Figure 1.2 Temperature development and trends of the last ten years as illustrated by three established global temperature data sets (surface stations and satellite measurements). Global warming has essentially stopped since the year 2000. Temperatures have fluctuated about a stable plateau.

The geologist and, at the time, my RWE colleague Sebastian Lüning referred me to two books: The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford [6] and The Chilling Stars by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder [7], which I tore through over a matter of days. In Montford’s book I read the following by David Deming, who received this in an email from an IPCC scientist: ‘We have to get rid of the medieval warmth.’ As I went through the ruses used to create the hockey stick, which feigned an unprecedented global temperature increase during recent decades, I was upset. I felt the wool had been pulled over my eyes.

To initiate a broad discussion on this obviously flawed procedure used by the IPCC, I wrote an essay that was published in the German daily Die Welt. It described the attempt by IPCC climate scientists to trivialize the natural variability of the climate in order to be able to make climate gas CO2 the single determining effect on our future climate. This simplification was obviously necessary to give the political demand of radically changing the global energy supply badly needed momentum.

The reaction to my piece from traditional climate scientists was frightening. The paper, titled The Cold Sun, was characterized by Stefan Rahmstorf, lead scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and co-author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, as ‘an extraordinary example of twisting scientific facts’. I had pointed out that the warming had ceased in 1998, yet Rahmstorf called this a distortion, claiming that all established global climate data sets showed a rising trend [8]. Is that true? Let’s put it to the test by looking at temperatures over the last 10 years. The result: two important data sets (HadCRUT and RSS) show a cooling trend (Figure 1.2). The rise in other data sets is minimal when compared to the strong warming phase of 1977–2000.

The confrontation served to initiate one thing: that we take a deeper look into natural climate change. Together with Lüning I became more intensely involved with the natural causes of climate fluctuations and tracked down the real extent of the CO2 threat. Manfred Bissinger, a leading name in German journalism, encouraged us to go one step further and write a synthesis about it. This book is the result. It reports on the astonishing findings that stem from our research and our discussions with palaeontologists, astrophysicists, solar scientists, oceanographers and theoretical physicists. For more than a year we talked to many scientists of varying opinions from all over the world and exchanged or requested information about new research results.2

Our conclusions? At a sociopolitical level, they are highly explosive. There is no question that CO2, methane and other climate gases have a limited warming effect on our climate. But there is also no doubt that a large part of the warming measured so far can be traced back to natural causes, with the sun having the most powerful impact on our climate.

Currently, the sun is in the process of switching to a longer-term phase of weak activity [9–10] and as a result we can expect a cooling period over the next decades. This is why we call it the ‘cold sun’. Over the coming decades the cold sun will give us the time we need to put the energy supply system on a sustainable basis without putting our civilization’s prosperity in jeopardy by implementing irrational, knee-jerk measures. Yes, of course it is necessary to free ourselves of our long-term dependency on fossil fuels for a number of reasons. We have to research new technologies for a sustainable energy supply, and we can develop renewable energies so that they become an economic alternative to traditional energy sources. This conversion process will take decades. But the cold sun will give us the time to do it in a measured way.

So why have the IPCC, many scientists and politicians been so successful in designating CO2 as the sole cause of the warming during the second half of the twentieth century? As we shall show, there is a multitude of natural causes – the changing solar irradiative intensity in harmony with the large solar cycles, the solar magnetic field in connection with cosmic radiation and cloud formation, the oscillating Pacific and Atlantic warming and cooling processes, stratospheric ozone, atmospheric water vapour and also poorly understood additional anthropogenic causes such as soot and aerosols. In this book we shall show that the earth’s climate depends in large part on multiple natural effects that are complexly interconnected, and are the main cause of the 1977–2000 warming.

Designating a single factor – namely, CO2 – as the only meaningful climate driver has truly been the dubious crowning achievement of political and scientific communication. The conclusion that one derives is utterly misleading in that it suggests that we ‘only’ need to reduce manmade CO2 emissions and then everything will be lovely. That was the simple message that the media and politicians readily accepted. It became the guiding narrative of every privately and publicly held discussion. Because of the simplicity of the equation for describing the climate system, it is easy for everyone to grasp. Unfortunately, it is false, as we shall demonstrate.

Physics and nature simply do not allow themselves to be influenced by such facile messages. It is becoming obvious that since the start of the millennium the CO2 equation for explaining the climate really doesn’t hold water. Despite continued increases in CO2 emissions, the global temperature has not risen over the last 13 years. The sun has weakened and is now showing us its cold side. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation – which describes the alternation from warm and cold water areas in the northern Pacific Ocean – does the rest.

In the next chapter we summarize the most important facts and interrelations. Assessing the mass of scientific data has led us to conclude that warming in the twentieth century is due only a small extent to CO2. More importantly, the 2-degree limit, which has been the mantra for all energy-political objectives in the political debate, will in all probability not be exceeded in the current century.

We hope that The Neglected Sun will make a contribution to initiating an urgent and much needed political discussion on realigning our climate policy, to opening up scientific research on the natural causes of climate change and to reorienting energy policy towards the politics of energy efficiency. The focus must return to ensuring that massive financial resources are rationally allocated to the truly urgent social, societal and ecological problems of the nine billion people on our planet.


1.   Lockwood, M., R. G. Harrison, T. Woollings and S. K. Solanki (2010) Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity? Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 1–7.
2.   Lockwood, M., R. G. Harrison, M. J. Owens, L. Barnard, T. Woollings and F. Steinhilber (2011) The solar influence on the probability of relatively cold UK winters in the future. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 1–11.
3.   Ineson, S., A. A. Scaife, J. R. Knight, J. C. Manners, N. J. Dunstone, L. J. Gray and J. D. Haigh (2011) Solar forcing of winter climate variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Nature Geoscience 4, 753–7.
4.   Matthes, K. (2011) Solar cycle and climate predictions. Nature Geoscience.
5.   Ljungqvist, F. C. (2010) A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia. Geografiska Annaler: Series A 92 (3), 339–51.
6.   Montford, A. W. (2010) The Hockey Stick Illusion. Stacey International, London.
7.   Svensmark, H. and N. Calder (2007) The Chilling Stars. Icon Books, Cambridge.
8.   Rahmstorf, S. (2011) Es winkt die RWE-Lobby.
9.   Barnard, L., M. Lockwood, M. A. Hapgood, M. J. Owens, C. J. Davis and F. Steinhilber (2011) Predicting space climate change. Geophysical Research Letters 38, 1–6.
10.   Clilverd, M. A., E. Clarke, T. Ulich, H. Rishbeth and M. J. Jarvis (2006) Predicting solar cycle 24 and beyond. Space Weather 4, 1–7.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)