Aletho News


Three Mile Island, Global Warming and the CIA

By Aletho News | January 9, 2012

This article examines some of the connections between the US and UK National Security apparatus and the appearance of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory beginning after the accident at Three Mile Island.

In the mid 1970s “climate cooling” was the topic of articles in popular magazines such as Newsweek with reports of meteorologists being “almost unanimous” that the trend could lead to catastrophic famines, another little ice age or worse. In 1974 Time magazine published an article titled “Another Ice Age?.” In 1975 the New York Times ran an article titled “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” while in 1978 they reported that “an international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.”

Of course, it may be true that the “newspaper of record” is not the best source for topics that go beyond the pronouncements of official or “off the record” statements from government agents. However, it is instructive that the message changed by the end of the decade, after the March 28, 1979 accident at Three Mile Island which had sounded the death knell for the nuclear power industry that is.

Daniel Yergin writes that by the early 1980s “a notable shift in the climate of climate change research was clear-from cooling to warming.”1 Yergin reports that the Department of Defense’s JASON committee had found “incontrovertible evidence that the atmosphere is indeed changing and that we ourselves contribute to that change,” adding “a wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.” Political action was now being called for. That action would entail reducing carbon emissions, something which could be achieved through increased reliance on the now unpopular nuclear power industry.

Nuclear weapons programs rely on the existence of large nuclear processing facilities including mining, milling and enrichment of uranium as well as a highly specialized and experienced labor pool. While it is possible to produce nuclear weapons without a nuclear power industry it is far preferable to have a dynamic nuclear industry in place. The nuclear facilities that existed in 1979 would not last forever and the industry was seen as an essential component of the military industrial complex. These factors may well have been over-riding considerations in the DoD JASON committee report.

One of the principle scientists engaged in formulating the AGW theory was Roger Revelle, a US Navy oceanographer who was employed at the Office of Naval Research. The US Navy was actually central to the development of the civilian nuclear power industry in the US due to its reactor designs for nuclear powered submarines and ships.

Another outspoken early proponent of AGW theory was Britain’s Margaret Thatcher who also sought the construction of new nuclear power plants as well as Trident nuclear submarines along with new nuclear weapons. Her Conservative party also sought to crush the coal miner’s unions with which they had intractable disputes. Britain went on to build new nuclear power plants during the 1980s while firing tens of thousands of coal miners.

In the US, the Carter administration sponsored the establishment of the solar energy industry, another carbon free energy source. George Tenet (later named as director of the CIA) became the promotion manager of the Solar Energy Industries Association which included companies such as Grumman, Boeing, General Motors and Exxon. The proposed ‘renewable’ and ‘green’ energy legislation over the decades consistently facilitated the viability of the development of new nuclear power plants. Other ‘alternative’ energy technologies were never seriously expected to become significant sources of electric power generation.

In 2008 another CIA director, James Woolsey, would also become involved in promoting “a Fortress America of tanks and solar panels, plug-in hybrids and nuclear reactors,”2 only in his case the service to the carbon free industry would come after the CIA stint rather than before. Woolsey has recently appeared in an anti-oil print ad for the American Clean Skies Foundation.

The Institute for Policy Studies reports on Woolsey’s focus as an energy security advisor to the John McCain presidential campaign:

A founding member of the Set America Free coalition, a pressure group aimed at highlighting the “security and economic implications of America’s growing dependence on foreign oil,” Woolsey sees himself as helping pioneer a new political coalition that combines his militarist security ideology with green politics. He says, “The combination of 9/11, concern about climate change, and $4 a gallon gasoline has brought a lot of people together. I call it the coalition of the tree-huggers, the do-gooders, the cheap hawks, the evangelicals, and the mom and pop drivers. All of those groups have good reasons to be interested in moving away from oil dependence.”3

The Set America Free coalition includes liberal groups such as the Apollo Alliance, the American Council on Renewable Energy and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

There is another significant bloc of support for the low carbon paradigm which has a foreign policy orientation. In promoting the reduction in reliance on Middle Eastern oil imports Woolsey is joined by prominent hawks such as Senator Joseph Lieberman, former Senator Sam Brownback, Representative Eliot Engel, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former national security adviser Robert McFarlane, Thomas Neumann of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum, Frank Gaffney head of the neoconservative Center for Security Policy (CSP), Cliff May of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), Gary Bauer of American Values and Meyrav Wurmser of the Hudson Institute.

An outcome of energy independence would be greater freedom to initiate wars of aggression across the Middle East region that would destroy any potential resistance to the greater Israel project. Woolsey’s positions as an advisor to the neoconservative-led Foundation for the Defense of Democracies; and advisory board member of the Likudnik Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs might shed some light on his aims. The low carbon paradigm serves both the nuclear goals as well as the geo-political goals of the neoconservatives.

Update, May 22, 2013:

The WSJ has distilled the message into just five words: Going Green? Then Go Nuclear

Update, July 11, 2013:

Obama’s Climate Action Plan: Nuclear Energy?

…  nuclear energy forms a crucial component of President Obama’s climate action plan.


1Daniel Yergin, The Quest, Penguin Press

2 Jackson West, “R. James Woolsey and the Rise of the Greenocons

3 Tim Shipman, “John McCain Hires Former CIA Director Jim Woolsey As Green Advisor,” Daily Telegraph, June 21, 2008.


Also by Aletho News:

November 13, 2011

US forces to fight Boko Haram in Nigeria

September 19, 2011

Bush regime retread, Philip Zelikow, appointed to Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board

March 8, 2011

Investment bankers salivate over North Africa

January 2, 2011

Top Israel Lobby Senator Proposes Permanent US Air Bases For Afghanistan

October 10, 2010

‘A huge setback for, if not the end of, the American nuclear renaissance’

July 5, 2010

Progressive ‘Green’ Counterinsurgency

February 25, 2010

Look out for the nuclear bomb coming with your electric bill

February 7, 2010

The saturated fat scam: What’s the real story?

January 5, 2010

Biodiesel flickers out leaving investors burned

December 26, 2009

Mining the soil: Biomass, the unsustainable energy source

December 19, 2009

Carbonphobia, the real environmental threat

December 4, 2009

There’s more to climate fraud than just tax hikes

May 9, 2009

Obama, Starving Africans and the Israel Lobby

January 8, 2012 - Posted by | Author: Atheo, Militarism, Nuclear Power, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , ,


  1. You are correct that there is a conspiracy about climate change but you have identified the wrong villains.

    There is a campaign of disinformation being run by the fossil fuel industry. They are using what is referred to as ‘the tobacco strategy’ – the same strategy that was used by the tobacco industry to ward off action against it for decades. In many cases the ‘guns for hire’ scientists who are spreading the disinformation are the very same people who did this role for the tobacco industry, DDT, and CFCs. You can read about it in “Merchants of Doubt”. It is a very well documented book. And the authors would have been sued for everything they own if it was inaccurate as it names names and details all sorts of immoral actions by the fossil fuel companies and individuals such as the Koch brothers.

    In the distant past changes in the earth’s climate were driven by changes in the position of the earth relative to the sun, changes in the tilt of the earth and changes in the activity of the sun. These were amplified by greenhouse gases and the albedo effect and resulted in very large shifts in climate over a period of hundreds of thousands of years. All those natural cycles should now be resulting int he earth slowly but surely entering the next ice age and until the 70’s it looked like that is what would happen. However, it is now clear that human induced climate change is overwhelming those natural cycles and each decade is hotter than the one before it.


    Comment by Jane R | February 22, 2012

    • Jane,

      I have considered a conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry and have found that there very likely is one.

      They have conspired with the AGW fraudsters. In fact, they were set to be the primary beneficiaries of the hoped for cap and trade carbon credits scheme.

      The AGW proponents who decry the funding of scientific ‘guns for hire’ by the fossil fuel industry simply ignore the pro-AGW science that the industry has sponsored. Exxon is reported to have spent more on pro-AGW research than anti.

      In any event the energy industry’s funding of research is a drop in the bucket next to the $50 billion or so that has been spent by governments trying to come up with evidence to back the AGW hypothesis.


      Comment by aletho | February 22, 2012

    • You are almost right but to deny anthropogenic change is ignorance if the earth heats up too much it triggers a feedback mechanism, so much cold water melts into the Atlantic it stops the trans Atlantic conveyor belt and we slip into an Ice Age.


      Comment by Kerry Bindon | November 10, 2016

  2. I don’t think there is much doubt that global warming is pushed as a means for cap and trade issues. Carbon footprint is pointed to also as the main contributor. There is not much talk on the increasing frequency of the sun being the main cause of this probably because there is little anyone can do about it. The global warming phenomenon has bee a subject of debate for decades.

    Complicating the picture is the fact that erupting strato-volcanoes can alter the weather for years also tossing particle into the air and they have increased lately into an era of increased eruptions. This however has not slowed down warming. You don’t measurie warming necessarily by how much ice appears on the ice caps, you do so by measuring the temperature of the oceans and they are warming. The oceans are warming and that is an indisputable fact and I don’t think it has much to do with carbon emissions.

    In the case of antarctica, there is also the matter of a super volcano being positioned under it. The ice pack is being melted from below to a certain degree by this and by the warmer ocean currents. If the ice pack should slide abruptly it would be catastrophic. There is evidence also to my satisfaction anyway it has happened before.

    The Babylonian cuneiform tablets contained in the Berlin Museum suggest this scenario has indeed happened before and is known to us as the flood of Noah, except the main character was not named Noah. It is also a subject covered in Velokovsky’s World’s in Collision displaying buttercups still in tact found in the mouths of Siberian wooly beasts indicating they were flash frozen by some type catastrophic event.

    In Sitchin’s tales of the Nefilim we see such a description of the polar ice cap slipping off it’s hinges and generating a tremendous tidal wave.

    “The moon disappeared. The appearance of the weather changed. The rains roared in the clouds. The winds became savage, the deluge set out. It’s might came upon the people like a battle. One person did not see another, they were not recognizable in the destruction. The deluge bellowed like a bull. The winds whinnied like a wild ass. The darkness was dense. The sun could not be seen.”

    “….the biblical and earlier Mesopotamian texts make clear that – the catastrophe began with a rush of wind from the south followed by a watery wave from the south. The source of the waters were the “fountains of the Great Deep” – a term that referred to the great and deep oceanic waters beyond Africa. The avalanche of water “submerged the dams of the dry land” – the coastal continental barriers. As the ice over Antarctica slipped into the Indian Ocean it caused an immense tidal wave. Gushing forth across the ocean northward, the wall of water overwhelmed the continental coastline of Arabia and rushed up the Persian Gulf. Then it reached the funnel of The Land Between the Rivers, engulfing all the lands.”


    Comment by dublinmick | May 4, 2012

  3. could this be the reason why racist/zionists are hellbent on war with Iran? maybe they think money will save them and we all know money is the product of war and desolation.


    Comment by maryam fritsch | May 26, 2012



    Comment by Lissakrhumanelife | June 4, 2013

  5. Damn. I finally find a site that “gets” the BS in the Middle East. And then I discover that you don’t get what’s happening in the atmosphere and to the climate. Interesting that you don’t present this as your theory, but as an examination of “some of the connections” — implying that your connections are more than coincidental.

    How about this connection? Particulate pollution causes atmospheric cooling. Scientists think we’re heading into a cooling period. The US EPA’s Clean Air Act really starts ramping up in the 70s. Polllution falls, demasking the warming effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    Anyway, thanks for your views on the Middle East, but if you don’t give a flying $#@! about the future of all the children, of all species, I won’t be back.


    Comment by GreenHearted | July 13, 2013

    • GH,

      My recommendation is to read the “climategate” emails written by the central characters in the “global warming” fraud. Then decide whether their hypothesis warrants your respect. If you feel strongly about the issue it’s worth the investment of your time and effort to discover where they are truly coming from.

      Link for emails:


      Comment by aletho | July 13, 2013

  6. Reblogged this on Peace by Truth.


    Comment by Eve Human | September 10, 2013

  7. Sorry to those many still promoting the oily bad guys/girls schtick, thereby dissing those who enrichen their wallets by selling us gasoline for our cars, and gas to keep out the winter chillies. Within the last few months, it is actually those bad boy bad girl higher up business leaders who have been in Canada, where else, bleating the horrors of AGW, and have joined up with ” the climate sky is falling” fairy tales. The main leader of this obvious strengthening conspiracy is the leader of Shell Canada. OHHHH deary me!!!! Now, just imagine that.

    Anyway, it does seem that for eons the natural world situation has been changing climate, including ages of mile high piles of ice, interspersed with tropical temps here and there.
    Ever hear of the term “Snowball Earth?”
    Not true.??? Check it out. Would this be the first time that the schemers have schemed?
    Ever hear about the Gulf of Tonkin? Now, that one seemed to have quite some consequences here and there. And, right on cue, hosannas to the highest. By the gulls.

    AGW. Just the latest in a series of major deceptions designed to benefit the already rich and powerful, at the loss of the gulls.


    Comment by Joey | November 29, 2016

  8. In the article you state that Britain under Margaret Thatcher “went on to build more nuclear plants in the 80’s”-there is no record of this and in any case, it takes years of planning to get one off the ground, it is not something which can be done overnight and frequently spans more than one parliamentary term-sometimes several, depending on environmental assessments and local opposition.


    Comment by Gregor Kropotkin | February 16, 2017

    • Well, they did build plants.

      Of course I don’t exclude the likelihood that they had already had plans to do so prior to the roll out of the public relations/propaganda campaign.


      Comment by aletho | February 16, 2017

  9. If a politician tells you its sunny outside make sure and grab your umbrella.

    One thing we can all agree on is that the two party political system relies on polarizing the public on issues. Prior to political polarization, people could talk about the weather calmly and peacefully with statements like…
    “looks like some heavy rain coming on” or “sure is a nice day” we could agree on that.
    But now politics promotes a polemic on providence.

    When politicians promote nuclear energy while ignoring the fact that it has already cost millions of lives and is well on the way to destroying the food chain, and in the same space tax a harmless molecule necessary for life making reduction of said life giving molecule the priority of the next century, you know global warming/climate change is just another anti proletariat scam like 9.11 by the oligarchs and their pursuance of a one government world.


    Comment by Diaz's packed bowl | February 17, 2017

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.