Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Cap and Trade Carbon Emissions Bill, Global Warming - Who Benefits?

******* *******
Kyoto - Cap and Trade: Destructive Policies Like WW I Reparations
Kyoto Accord; Climate Equivalent Of Treaty of Versailles
By Dr. Tim Ball
Monday, June 7, 2010
In a wonderful parody two Australian satirists put the current European and world financial situation in an appropriate Alice In Wonderland perspective.
It’s a simple situation compared to the larger, but just as foolish, plans underway with cap and trade to create global socialism. It’s almost trite to quote George Santayana’s “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Invariably it is bad politics that repeats.
Secular Retribution: Pay For Your Sins
Selfishness and retribution have undermined the global economy before. Wrong-headed political decisions of the Treaty of Versailles caused economic collapse after World War I. Countries demanded reparations from Germany as part of the 14 points Woodrow Wilson drafted before the war ended. One of the most devastating parts of the Treaty was Article 231, the “War Guilt Clause.” Germany was forced to accept responsibility for starting the war and required, at French insistence, on paying massive unmanageable reparations. Reparations are defined as “making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged.” Germany was unable to make the payments because the Treaty seriously restricted growth so the US provided the funds. The so-called winners needed money to rebuild and borrowed from US banks. “The United States entered World War I late (1917) and emerged as a major creditor and financier of post-War restoration.” US banks were more than willing to loan money. However, once US banks began failing ... the banks not only stopped making loans, they wanted their money back. This put pressure on European economies, which had not fully recovered from WWI, contributing to the global economic downturn.
Besides economic disasters, the Treaty of Versailles gave Hitler all the ammunition he needed to rebuild Germany. Under the guise of economic reconstruction and rebirth of national pride, he built the massive war machine that took the world into darkness and destruction. Hitler cannot be absolved his responsibility, but neither can those who, through narrow political views and a desire for retribution and control, provided the opportunity.
Kyoto Accord; Climate Equivalent Of Treaty of Versailles
In a parallel process the Kyoto Accord, the climate equivalent of the Treaty of Versailles, began with the 1992 Rio Conference and was formalized in Japan in 1997. First they established guilt. “Recognizing that developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”
Rules were adopted for implementation in 2001 and put into action in 2005.
Scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provided the ‘science’ for the politicians. The first IPCC Report in 1990 began the false connection between CO2 and global warming. Deception increased with each Report as the leaked emails of the Climatic Research Unit documented.
Meanwhile two things are in play. First, the emissions trading scheme or “carbon market” designed to make nations, who enriched and advanced themselves using CO2 producing energies, pay those who have ‘suffered’. The Kyoto Protocol divides the nations into groups through an arbitrary level of CO2 production. Those above can continue above the level but only if they purchase carbon credits from those under the level. The fallacy of the idea is it is designed to reduce CO2 when it actually allows a continuance of use. In reality it’s a naked, unsustainable transfer of wealth. Second, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows ‘above’ nations to earn saleable certified emission reduction (CER) credits worth one tonne of CO2 each by building an emission reducing project in the ‘under’ nation. This doesn’t reduce CO2 levels either because without the outside investment the project wouldn’t have occurred. It’s a crude form of foreign aid that forces successful businesses to subsidize businesses in the ‘under’ nations giving unfair advantage on world markets. It‘s a bureaucratic delight because it’s an administrative nightmare.
They claim, “The Kyoto Protocol is generally seen as an important first step towards a truly global emission reduction regime that will stabilize GHG emissions, and provides the essential architecture for any future international agreement on climate change.”
The trouble is GHG emissions are not stabilized or decreased and it’s irrelevant anyway because they’re not causing climate change. However, they will destabilize the world economy, just as reparations did after WWI.
No nation achieved Kyoto Protocol CO2 reduction targets and the Copenhagen Conference of the Parties was a bust. However, the planning proceeds with the eleventh session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex 1 Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 11) at the Bonn Climate Change talks in April 2010. Once a bureaucracy is established it’s almost impossible to kill, especially at the UN. It is effectively beyond the control of individual nations, but politicians have no interest in stopping the process. They saw tax and control potential under the guise of saving the planet.
Obama Apologizes For US Success, Imposes Penalties On The People
President Obama pursues the goal of reparations within the US. Americans must be punished for aggression and profligate ways; he believes they have a powerful, successful burgeoning economy at the expense of the rest of the world its resources and the environment. He told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008, “I’m capping greenhouse gases…That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers under my plan of a cap and trade system. Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” The Congressional Budget Office estimates a 15 percent reduction in CO2 costs $1,400 a year for a family with a $50,000 annual income. No matter how it is done the costs end up with the individual and their ability to pay will diminish as the economy collapses.
Solutions are potentially as damaging as those of the Treaty of Versailles. They place the entire US and world economy in jeopardy and will not stop climate change because CO2 is not the cause. Alternative energy is not capable, under current technology, of meeting US requirements and will not reduce CO2 because it requires 100% traditional energy backup. Even with subsidies they are uncompetitive. CO2 is not a pollutant and real pollution levels have declined steadily and would do so faster if money wasted on climate change and subsidizing alternate energies were redirected. US energy independence is readily available with coal, nuclear and natural gas but only if politicians stop playing politics. Ironically and appropriately, it was communist leader Nikita Khrushchev who said, “Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.”
Arizona quits Western climate endeavor
Cutting greenhouse gases too expensive, Brewer says
by Shaun McKinnon - Feb. 11, 2010
The Arizona Republic
Arizona will no longer participate in a groundbreaking attempt to limit greenhouse-gas emissions across the West, a change in policy by Gov. Jan Brewer that will include a review of all the state's efforts to combat climate change.
Brewer stopped short of pulling Arizona out of the multistate coalition that plans to regulate greenhouse gases starting in 2012. But she made it clear in an executive order that Arizona will not endorse the emission-control plan or any program that could raise costs for consumers and businesses.
State officials said the policy shift was rooted in concerns that the controversial emissions plan would slow the state's economic recovery. Brewer says the state should focus less on regulations and more on renewable energy and investments by businesses that can create green jobs.
The governor also ordered the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to take another look at stricter vehicle-emissions rules set to take effect in 2012. Automakers said the rules, based on those adopted by California, would raise the cost of a new car significantly.
The governor's order is another blow to the Western Climate Initiative, a group of seven states and four Canadian provinces that joined forces in 2007 after growing impatient with the federal government to address climate change.
The coalition agreed to implement a regional "cap and trade" system, which limits how much pollution companies can emit, then allows them to buy and sell pollution credits.
Supporters say the system lets the marketplace make polluting more costly, encouraging emitters - factories, power plants and others - to clean up more quickly. So far, California is the only U.S. state in the Western coalition prepared to start the program on schedule in January 2012. The recession and political opposition has slowed legislation to implement the rules in other states.
The Western group is one of several state-led coalitions formed to regulate greenhouse gases. A group of Northeastern states is in the second year of its cap-and-trade system, one that only regulates electric utilities.
A federal plan has stalled in the Senate and is unlikely to move anytime soon.
Arizona's chief environmental regulator said Brewer's order, which was signed last week without fanfare, should be seen as a step forward in Arizona's attempts to foster renewable energy and green jobs.
"Arizona needs a green-and-grow approach rather than a cap-and-trade approach," ADEQ Director Benjamin Grumbles said. "We can make environmental and economic progress, and we can do it by staying engaged and creating green-job opportunities."
Brewer ordered the state to continue converting its vehicle fleet so that by January 2012, all vehicles used by the state are hybrids, meet low greenhouse-gas emission standards or use some form of alternative fuel.
The governor also said Arizona can remain active with the Western coalition by exploring policies related to solar power and other renewable energy sources, growth policies that limit pollution or steps to adapt to the changing climate.
"It's very important for the state to stay engaged, to be at the table, but it's also important to convey clearly our position on how to make progress," Grumbles said. "Right now, given the economic downturn, given the complexity of the cap-and-trade scheme being developed, we're not going to be supportive of it."
Arizona joined the effort under its previous governor, Janet Napolitano. The states involved agreed to the cap-and-trade idea, but each would have to implement the rules at its own state level.
Brewer said legislative approval would be required for Arizona to participate in the regional cap-and-trade plan.
The Legislature has attempted several times to dismantle the state's climate-change programs and forbid its participation in the cap-and-trade system. Leaders said Wednesday that lawmakers are unlikely to reconsider their positions.
"I do not believe they would," said Sen. Carolyn Allen, R-Scottsdale, a member of the Senate's Natural Resources, Infrastructure and Public Debt Committee. "But this Legislature is full of surprises."
Environmental groups expressed disappointment at Brewer's decision. Arizona had been a founding member of the Western climate group and had signed on to the cap-and-trade blueprint released in September 2008.
"I think it's embarrassing for the state of Arizona," said Sandy Bahr of the Sierra Club in Phoenix. "It demonstrates a real lack of understanding of how significant of a threat climate change is to the state. We ought to be standing at the front of the line to look at solutions."
Diane Brown, executive director of the advocacy group Arizona PIRG, said Arizona doesn't have to abandon other policies that could help reduce global-warming emissions, such as efforts to increase energy efficiency and reduce vehicle pollution.
"It is important for Arizona to remain at the table with colleagues in other Western states," she said. "A number of policies can still take place to reduce global-warming emissions and, in a state with increasing population, it's particularly important to get ahold of the situation."
Republic reporter Casey Newton contributed to this article.
Meteorologists agree: man-made warming isn’t real
Andrew Bolt
Thursday, January 28, 2010
What would 121 meteorologists know about the weather, anyway?
Only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming, a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reports.
The survey results contradict the oft-repeated assertion that a consensus of scientists believes humans are causing a global warming crisis…
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) survey was limited to television weather forecasters who are also meteorologists. A prior survey of all television weather forecasters--including ones without meteorological training--produced a heavy percentage of skeptics. The new survey was designed to determine whether the meteorologists held the same opinion as the broader group of all television weather forecasters.
The survey was conducted by the congressionally funded National Environmental Education Foundation and vetted by an advisory board of climate experts from groups such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, and Pew Center for Global Climate Change.
The AMS study found:
Only 24 percent of the survey respondents agree with United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertion, Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.
Only 19 percent agree with the claim, Global climate models are reliable in their projection for a warming of the planet.
Only 19 percent agree with the assertion, Global climate models are reliable in their projections for precipitation and drought.
Only 45 percent disagree with Weather Channel cofounder John Colemans strongly worded statement, Global warming is a scam.
John Beddington: chief scientist says climate change sceptics 'should not be dismissed'
Climate change sceptics should not be dismissed, the Government's chief scientific adviser has said, as he called for more openness in the global warming debate.
By Andrew Hough
27 Jan 2010
Prof John Beddington admitted the impact of global warming had been exaggerated by some scientists and condemned climate researchers who refused to publish data which formed the basis of their reports into global warming.
In an interview, Prof Beddington, called for a new era of honesty and responsibility from the environmental community and said scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming.
His words were refected in a New Scientist editorial that also argued that climate scientists should "welcome in the outside world" for more scrutiny.
Prof Beddington also said public confidence in climate science would be boosted by greater honesty about its uncertainties.
''I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper scepticism,” he said.
“Science grows and improves in the light of criticism.
“There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.”
His comments come after the United Nations’ climate science panel admitted last week that it made a mistake by claiming that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
The IPCC was forced to apologise after the prediction in its benchmark 2007 report – that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 – was revealed to have been based on unsubstantiated claims.
It followed another row surrounding the science behind climate change, dubbed “Climategate”, when leaked e-mails appeared to suggest that scientists at the University of East Anglia had manipulated climate change data.
As a result Prof Phil Jones, the director of the University’s Climatic Research Unit and a contributor to IPCC reports, has been forced to stand down while he is investigated.
Urging scientists to release their data to their critics, Prof Beddington added: ''I think, wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community.
“There is a danger that people can manipulate the data, but the benefits from being open far outweigh that danger.”
The New Scientist editorial said that the IPCC has done 'Herculean' work in assessing the risk of climate change and the recent revelations do not undermine the conclustion that man made global warming is happening.
But the process needs to be reviewed so that the public had more access to research and reports come out more frequently.
Lord Stern of Brentford, has previously said that climate change sceptics that pedal “muddled and unscientific” thinking could stop the world from tackling global warming.
Prof Beddington insisted that uncertainty about some aspects of climate science should not be used as an excuse for inaction:
But he said the false claim in the IPCC's 2007 report revealed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented.
“Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate,” he said.
“We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There's definitely an issue there.
“If there wasn't, there wouldn't be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, 'there's a level of uncertainty about that'.”
Prof Beddington also said that large-scale climate modelling using computers resulted in ''quite substantial uncertainties'' that should be communicated.
''It's unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere,” he told The Times.
“But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change.”
Last week Nasa scientists reported that the past decade was the warmest on record, proving that global warming had continued “unabated”.
Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, found average global temperatures have increased by about 1.5F (0.8C) since 1880, when records began.
Public Media Bias and Climate Change
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, British Broadcasting Corporation--Taxpayer Funded Bias
By Dr. Tim Ball
Monday, January 25, 2010
Americans are lucky left wing radio station Air America crashed before Obama and founder now Senator Al Franken found a way to turn it into public radio.
Ironically, Saul Alinsky, father of US radical socialism wanted to break control of the media because it was used by power elites. Obama doesn’t need to break the control as the mainstream media act as a state media.
Bernie Goldberg wrote about this in his book “A Slobbering Love Affair.” Hypocrisy is the problem with mainstream media bias because they claim they’re unbiased. Public media practices similar hypocrisy. My worst experiences with bias and personal attacks in the media were with public media including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). They should be unbiased and apolitical but they are not. Funding by all taxpayers demands neutrality, but it doesn’t happen and it’s always left of centre.
Totalitarian governments control all media. In democracies, public media means radio and television, but paradoxically not newspapers. It is considered acceptable because they don’t have a monopoly, they do have a considerable financial advantage. Fear of political interference means they are often protected, but this means they are not accountable to the market place or the taxpayers. They have no place in society.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation – Taxpayer Funded Bias.
Mission statements all belie what they actually do. The CBC claim, “The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation occupies a unique position of trust. Not only is it the most substantial and broadly-based broadcast journalism organization in Canada, it is funded, through Parliament, by the people of Canada. CBC/Radio-Canada therefore considers it a duty to provide consistent, high-quality information upon which all citizens may rely.”
Various reporters like Anna Maria Tremonti have called, but to my knowledge, never used anything I provided. I believe they were fishing expeditions to learn and then counter denier’s views without giving them voice. I stopped responding to requests.
Leftist environmentalist David Suzuki. Biases, distortions, and false information
CBC science is almost the exclusive playground of the leftist environmentalist David Suzuki. Biases, distortions, and false information are in evidence throughout his series, “the Nature of Things”. Bob McDonald ably supports him with his bias, lack of climate qualifications, and misrepresentations.
McDonald has no post-high school education. He has honorary degrees but they’re condemnation of the granting universities. In one bio as a keynote speaker they wrote, “Bob refers to himself as a ‘dropout’ and shared his personal and professional journey in a world where the lack of formal credentials can create significant barriers.” Lack of credentials is only an issue when you disagree with anthropogenic global warming.
The CBC produces very biased programs and only show material to support one side. Gore’s movie appeared often even after the major errors were identified. The CBC program Fifth Estate planned a program ostensibly about climate change. Warned of the objective and wary because of the biased title “The Denial Machine” I declined to participate. Initial requests were reasonable then the producer became belligerent. If I didn’t participate, my side would not be heard and they could say what they wanted. I declined. They became desperate because the script was already written.
In northern British Columbia to give a breakfast keynote speech, I arrived early to check the platform. A man approached and asked for an interview afterward. I asked if he was from Fifth Estate, he firmly said no he was from CBC News. Without my knowledge I was being filmed from below the stage. I had a 7-hour drive to a second presentation and didn’t have time. He left and returned a few minutes later and asked if they could interview me there. I said he was free to do what he wanted. He left the stage but came back 10 minutes later and said the camera crew didn’t want to drive that far and all they wanted was 10 minutes. I agreed.
They did not record any of my speech. I sat down before the camera, so the interviewer assumed I was committed and then disclosed they were from Fifth Estate. I stood up removed the microphone and when asked why I was leaving said, “I don’t talk to liars.” In the program they used the footage taken earlier to superimpose my voice. I protested to the CBC Ombudsman to no avail. Ironically, this was paid for partly by my taxes.
British Broadcasting Corporation – More Taxpayer Funded Bias
The BBC gets away with very biased reporting, especially on climate. Their mission claims, “The BBC is the largest broadcasting corporation in the world. Its mission is to enrich people’s lives with programmes that inform, educate and entertain. It is a public service broadcaster, established by a Royal Charter and funded by the license fee that is paid by UK households. - Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest.”
Trust is not my experience and the leaked e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) disclose the extent of the deception and involvement of the BBC. An internal review is underway.
First attempt at disclosure occurred when CRU information was sent to Paul Hudson at the BBC, probably chosen because he appeared reasonable in his views. On October 11, 2009 an email to Mann said, “You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that there’s been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics views.” The CRU gang thought the BBC was in their control as Mann’s reply indicates. “Extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. Its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?” Why didn’t Hudson disclose the bombshell that appeared in his e-mails? Either he was ordered not to disclose or he feared for his job, or both.
At the first Heartland Institute Climate Conference in New York, the BBC asked for an interview. I thought they were covering the first international “skeptics” conferences avoided by most media. After 45 minutes of taping, they asked if I would participate in a longer interview the next day. I signed the normal waiver before the second interview, which lasted approximately 2 hours. They were not there to cover the conference; it simply provided easy access to skeptics for a program ridiculing them. From almost 3 hours of tape, they selected two short sentences one which they repeated. I complained to Ofcom, the ombudsman agency, to no avail. Deliberate misrepresentation of the purpose of the interview was allowed because I signed the waiver.
The left-wing bias is the total culture of the BBC community
The internal review will prove nothing and will be a whitewash. The left-wing bias is the total culture of the BBC community and will not change. Here is what a reporter experienced who attended a BBC seminar on climate change. “I found the seminar frankly shocking. The BBC crew (senior executives from every branch of the corporation) were matched by an equal number of specialists, almost all (and maybe all) of whom could be said to have come from the “we must support Kyoto” school of climate change activists.” Then the most damming comment, “I was frankly appalled by the level of ignorance of the issue which the BBC people showed.” Sadly, Britons have to pay a license fee with all proceeds going to the BBC. The fee and the BBC should disappear.
No Place For Public Media
Taxpayer funded public media has consistent left-wing bias regardless of the party in power. Mission statements claim balance, but this is never the case. Remove the funding and these agencies fail. Deliberations by the Obama government on limiting or closing down what are dubbed right wing radio appeared early using the usual deceptive approach. Create the bogeyman by identifying supposed exploitation then propose fairness.
I use the word fairness because they proposed the “Fairness Doctrine” as the legislative vehicle. Repeal of the Doctrine allowed the spread of conservative talk radio so obviously re-enactment will cause its demise.
Air America crashed and conservative radio soared without the Fairness Doctrine. The people have spoken by listening. Freedom to speak also means freedom to listen.
Climategate; The Supporting Cast - Thought Police Anyone?
Computer Models and Computer Modelers, Goon Squad,Wikipediia
By Dr. Tim Ball
Monday, December 7, 2009
Too Big To Believe
George Monbiot of the Guardian (UK) was among the first mainstream media to express concern. “I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.” He was reacting to corruption on an unprecedented scale in exposed files from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
Typically, he was only concerned about being fooled. To his further shame he is now in denial of the extent of the deception. True, the scale and extent appears unbelievable because it uses the deception of the Big Lie – too big to believe. However, I know it’s believable because I watched it develop and grow. Particularly since 1985 when the conference in Villach Austria conjoined the CRU with the fledgling Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Tom Wigley and Phil Jones attended but were already developing the phony climate science Maurice Strong needed to pursue his goal of destroying western economies. For example, in a 1983 article Wigley was convincing climate science of a falsely low pre-industrial level of CO2. Early attempts to challenge what they were doing followed normal academic processes and little interference occurred. For example, a book review I wrote based on the bad science became a Review Editorial In Climatic Change (Volume 35, Number 4 / April, 1997.)
Computer Models and Computer Modelers
The big change came when computer modelers took over climate science. I knew modeling global climate was impossible; apart from the inadequate surface and upper atmosphere database computer capacity was and is still inadequate. At conference after conference I watched modelers bully everybody. Models are the most corrupt part of the CRU and IPCC fiasco, an exposure yet to emerge. They produced the ridiculous ‘predictions’ of disaster used to promote control through fear.
We’ve learned of data manipulation, publication and peer review control, and personal attacks on those who asked questions. Yet to emerge is how they manipulated the computer models to reach a result that was not a simulation of nature but proof that human CO2 was causing global warming and climate change. As the IPCC and its model projections grew in power to dominate global energy policy it drew increasing attention. This grew threatening and triggered the need for a Palace Guard to defend the CRU and the IPCC.
The Goon Squad
A group of scientists established themselves as the goon squad for the gangster bosses at the CRU. Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt led and quickly earned reputations for nasty and vindictive responses. On December 10, 2004 Schmidt gave the CRU gang a Christmas present: “Colleagues, no doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see agenda-driven “commentary” on the Internet and in the opinion columns of newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task. In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below) have recently got together to build a new ‘climate blog’ website: RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days:” The group was, Mike Mann - Eric Steig - William Connolley - Stefan Rahmstorf - Ray Bradley - Amy Clement - Rasmus Benestad - William Connolley (sic) - Caspar Ammann.
They’re familiar names to people who got in their way. Now the world should know. Evasiveness pervading the behavior recorded in the CRU emails was present at RealClimate (RC) and beyond. Note that William Connolley is listed twice – a Freudian slip because he was the nastiest and did double duty, but more on him shortly. (Source)
Schmidt elaborates, “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or events.” The phrase “working climate scientists” was used frequently and typifies their arrogance. Unless you are one you have no credibility or right to an opinion. It’s similar to their peer review charge and establishes them as the elite.
Modus Operandi Involved Mainstream Media
Activities of these “working climate scientists” were not to answer questions about their work but to divert, distract, ignore and marginalize with lies about people and ideas. Here is a February 9, 2006 email from Michael Mann that gives a flavor of the almost paranoid behavior.“I see that Science (the journal) has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed). Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include. You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don’t get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…”
Mann spread his lies about McIntyre by using Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. As recently as September 29, 2009 he wrote, “those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.” Jones did it when he defended his refusal to answer FOI’s to the administration at the University of East Anglia. The emails from Revkin are disturbing and reveal unhealthy involvement and lack of journalistic integrity. No wonder he blocked use of the Climategate material in the newspaper when it appeared. It was not journalistic integrity it covered his involvement.
Schmidt notes, “This is a strictly volunteer/spare time/personal capacity project and obviously nothing we say there reflects any kind of ‘official’ position.” What hypocrisy. This is the game James Hansen and others play. He is Director of the NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) when it suits and a private citizen when it suits. It’s a duplicity that underlines the politics of their activities.
Wikipedia – A Falsified Resource For Students and Media
The most insidious activity included controlling climate information through Wikipedia. When I ask students how many use Wikipedia for their research all hands go up. I know most media rely on it. Most have no idea how the material is entered or edited.
William Connolley knew and exploited the opportunity. A participant in computer modeling he was as nasty as Mann and Schmidt. His activities are shocking. He established himself as an editor at Wikipedia and with a cadre (I use the term deliberately) of supporters he controlled all entries relating to climate, climate change and the people involved. This included putting up false material about skeptics. They constantly monitored the entries and if you tried to correct anything it was rapidly returned to the original false information. With so many people they could easily circumvent the limit on number of edits per person. Connolley as a designated editor had even more latitude. Here is just a brief example of his recent work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/William_M._Connolley
Some are still denying the extent and impact of what the CRU and their supporters did. Others have correctly drawn parallels with the Big Lie. It is almost too big to believe. Others incorrectly say it wasn’t planned. It was! They knew exactly what they were doing because if they were dealing with the truth they wouldn’t need a Goon Squad.
The Greatest Scam on Earth
Al Gore, Great Global warming scam
By Daniel Greenfield Thursday, November 5, 2009
In 2000 Al Gore was a failed Presidential candidate with a paltry 2 million dollars to his name. Not a lot of money for a guy whose lavish mansion gobbles up almost a 150,000 dollars in electric utilities annually alone, and that of course is before property taxes and all the other costs of owning a home in Belle Meade, which has one of the region’s highest costs of living. But besides growing a beard and lecturing college students on journalism, a hobby he had last practiced in the 70’s, Al Gore didn’t have much of a career plan.
But Gore didn’t starve on the streets either, and eight years later, despite not having much in the way of a job, the former Vice President is worth over a hundred million dollars. Expanding your net worth by %2500 percent sounds like the Madoff investment plan, but the scam that Al Gore invested in is one that makes Madoff look like a piker… because Gore invested in The Greatest Scam on Earth.
The Greatest Scam on Earth naturally revolves around the earth itself, combining millennial apocalyptic visions with junk science to create global warming. In 1920 the American poet Robert Frost wrote, “Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice, From what I’ve tasted of desire, I hold with those who favor fire.” Taking an incomplete cue from poem, the school of environmental apocalypse first tried to sell the idea of an ice age, before switching over to global warming.
In the 70’s the talk was of a coming ice age.
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Naturally of course mankind was to blame for the problem
Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin’s Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.
And of course the world was doomed.
University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: “I don’t believe that the world’s present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row.”
Doomed I tell you. How will we ever survive 1972? And yet here we are in the year 2009, and while it is chilly outside, New York City is not enclosed by giant icebergs. Neither is any other part of the world that isn’t normally enclosed by icebergs.
Today Time Magazine runs virtually the same stories, except all that stuff about the world freezing to death, has been replaced by stories about the world melting to death. A coming Ice Age was a plausible place to start the environmental apocalyptic panic. After all scientists claimed that humanity had already endured an ice age, and there was something plausible about claiming that another one was on the way. Nuclear winter had become a potent boogeyman of the Cold War, convincing most Americans that a nuclear exchange would doom the planet.
But as Frost had pointed out all the way back in 1920, the idea of the world perishing in flames had a more poetic appeal. From medieval paintings of hell as a place scorched by flame, to the modern atomic terror… fire was a more compelling villain. And by redirecting the locus of environmental impact away from inhabited areas to the North Pole and other arctic regions that most people did not have any experience with, it became possible to claim just about anything at all was going on there. Anything at all.
Today, as the case of Al Gore demonstrates, there is a great deal of money to be made from preaching from environmental apocalypse. Green Business is big business and today you can find green labels on everything from cars to paper towels. Celebrities have embraced green, the way they once embraced African babies, and have introduced timely proposals for the general public, including drinking rat’s milk and breathing less.
The difference between the madman who stands on a street corner with a placard reading, “ThE WORLD IS GONG TO END!” and Al Gore is the difference between madness and big business. If Al Gore really believed in his own dogma, he wouldn’t be spending more on electricity a year than the average family’s income. If celebrities really believed their own sound bites, they wouldn’t be flying private jets around the world.
But the Greatest Scam on Earth is not about living an environmentally virtuous life, but about selling environmental virtue to others. At a price.
Cap and Trade is the final solution for American manufacturing and industry, destroying what’s left and leaving the rest as government subsidized shells. Wall Street will profit, investors will flock to buy absolutely worthless bonds whose only purpose is to add overhead to American businesses, and everything else will head on a ship to China, which has been smart enough to cash in on global warming alarmism, without actually giving up any of its heavy industry.
But that really doesn’t matter, because millennial panics never take into account the long term consequences. They are about the irrational panic of a minority and those orchestrating the panic who expect to profit from it. The same Al Gore who owned a zinc mine and spoke lovingly of Tobacco farming turned himself into an environmentalist prophet thanks to some ghost written books and a documentary created by PowerPoint. In the process he earned himself a Nobel Peace Prize, and more importantly a hundred million dollars, which is only the beginning if the Obama Administration pushes through the rest of the rent seeking proposals that will transform the American economy into a sharecropping venture overseen by a handful of American politicians and foreign investors.
The Greatest Scam on Earth is set to destroy America’s economy.
 Its propaganda mills are restlessly chattering away in magazines and movies, schools and commercials offering up the same old vision of the crying Indian, the visage of the world we sinfully polluted. The hypocrisy of such lectures being delivered by magazines printed on dead trees, by celebrities who live opulently thanks to goods being transported for them around the world, by politicians who stand to benefit personally from the crisis they are manufacturing of course falls on deaf ears. The scam grinds on, and the one thing all that green is sure to accomplish, is to put us all in the red.
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and freelance commentator. “Daniel comments on political affairs with a special focus on the War on Terror and the rising threat to Western Civilization. He maintains a blog at Sultanknish.blogspot.com.
Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com
Media Now Promoting Arctic 'Hockey Stick'
By Marc Morano
September 5, 2009
Study 'contradicts numerous previous Arctic studies'
The Washington Post is touting a new study purporting to show an Arctic temperature “Hockey Stick.” But the study appears to contradict numerous previous Arctic studies and scientists are already challenging the premise and claims of the new study. The study in under fire for basing key results and conclusions on Penn State Professor Michael Mann's discredited “Hockey Stick” temperature graph. (Editor's Note: Mann just recently attempted to invent a hurricane "Hockey Stick" as well.)
The new study claims to show “human-generated greenhouse gas emissions have helped reverse a 2,000-year trend of cooling in the Arctic, prompting warmer average temperatures in the past decade that now rank higher than at any time since 1 B.C.,” according to a September 3, 2009 article by the Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin. The study will appear in the September 3, 2009 online version of the journal Science. The lead author was Northern Arizona University professor Darrell S. Kaufman.
The Washington Post also saw fit to gave prominent play to the environmental group World Wildlife Fund's new dire Arctic study claiming a scary global warming caused “transformation” of the Arctic. The Post article on the new Arctic “Hockey Stick” completely glossed over years of contrary data and instead mostly gave the authors a scrutiny free ride. (Eilperin also misspelled the name of one scientist she quoted.)
MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, “This looks like this week's "Hockey Stick" including many of Mann's collaborators.” [Editor's Note: Mann's has attempted multiple "Hockey Stick" inventions and his newest creation is the Hurricane "Hockey Stick.”]
'Closely matches the Mann version'
Climate data analyst Steve McIntyre who publishes Climate Audit and is known for his research discrediting Mann's original "Hockey Stick" temperature graph, weighed in on the new Arctic study. “Amusingly, the [Arctic study's lead author] Kaufman Team perpetuates Mann's upside down use of the Tiljander proxy,” McIntyre wrote on September 3, 2009. “You can readily see that this closely matches the Mann version,” McIntyre noted. “The most cursory examination [of the study] shows the usual problem of seemingly biased picking of proxies without any attempt to reconcile proxy conflicts,” McIntryre wrote.
'Several things wrong'
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, also critiqued the study, telling Climate Depot, “There are several things wrong with this paper.”
“The study's Abstract mentions the [warm] 'Middle Ages' and the [cold] 'Little Ice Age.' Both are well established; for example, C. Loehle (and many other researchers) show the Medieval Warm Period with higher temperatures than even the past 30 years. But Fig 3 of this paper doesn't show these; it goes back to the discredited 'Hockey-Stick' temp curve of Mann (which even the IPCC no longer uses) that shows no Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Little Ice Age (LIA),” Singer said. [Editor's Note: In addition, a 2006 peer-reviewed analysis showed the 20th century was not unusually warm.]
Singer also noted, “Actual thermometer data (Polyakov et al) are available for the 20th century; there is no need for indirect proxy data. They show the warmest years in the Arctic around 1935. This can also seen clearly in the CRUTEM data of their Fig 2 (black curve).”
In addition, the new Arctic “Hockey Stick” study appears to contradict numerous previous studies on the Arctic.
New Peer-Reviewed Study Shows Arctic COOLING Over last 1500 years! - Feb 5, 2008 - Published in Climate Dynamics on 30 January 2008
Excerpt: New Arctic Study published in Climate Dynamics, and the work was conducted by Håkan Grudd of Stockholm University's Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology - Published online: 30 January 2008 - Excerpt: “The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Torneträsk record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer.
Danish Meteorological Institute records show: No Arctic Warming Since 1958! - 'Arctic was warmer in the 1940s than now' - May 13, 2009
U.S. Government Arctic Study: 'Current rate of human-influenced Arctic warming is comparable to peak natural rates documented by reconstructions of past climates' - January 16, 2009
January 2008 study in the peer-reviewed journal Science found North Atlantic warming tied to natural variability. Excerpt: A Duke University-led analysis of available records shows that while the North Atlantic Ocean's surface waters warmed in the 50 years between 1950 and 2000, the change was not uniform. In fact, the sub-polar regions cooled at the same time that subtropical and tropical waters warmed. This striking pattern can be explained largely by the influence of a natural and cyclical wind circulation pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), wrote authors of a study published Thursday, January 3 in Science Express, the online edition of the journal Science. [...] “It is premature to conclusively attribute these regional patterns of heat gain to greenhouse warming,” they wrote.
A November 2007 peer-reviewed study conducted by a team of NASA and university experts found cyclical changes in ocean currents impacting the Arctic. Excerpt: “Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,” said James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory in Seattle, according to a November 13, 2007 NASA release.
A 2005 peer-reviewed study in Geophysical Research Letters by astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, solar irradiance appears to be the key to Arctic temperatures. The study found Arctic temperatures follow the pattern of increasing or decreasing energy received from the sun. Excerpt: Solar forcing explains well over 75% of the variance for the decadally-smoothed Arctic annual-mean or spring SATs (surface air temperatures).
According to a 2003 study by Arctic scientist Igor Polyakov, the warmest period in the Arctic during the 20th Century was the late 1930s through early 1940s. Excerpt: Our results suggest that the decadal AO (Arctic Oscillation) and multidecadal LFO (low-frequency oscillation) drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.
Report: Arctic 'ice level in the 1920's, 30's and early 40's was at a similar low level' of today - September 10th, 2008
For many, many more Arctic studies, go to: Climate Depot's Arctic Fact Sheet - Get the latest peer-reviewed studies and analysis – July 30, 2009
The Post aritlce on the new Arctic study also reported: “The [new Arctic] paper in Science sheds light on several key scientific questions, including how the earth's orbital pattern around the sun affects our climate, and the extent to which current computer climate models mirror real-world conditions. Some climate skeptics have argued that the fact that the earth wobbles in its axis of rotation has helped determine recent warming, rather than human activities. But the new study shows this wobble -- which affects how much sunlight the earth receives in the middle of the summer -- actually accounts for a long-term cooling trend in the Arctic, which has only been reversed in the past half-century.”
But geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications, disputed the findings of new Arctic report. “The glacial record (both advance and retreat history and the isotope data in Greenland ice cores) contrast sharply with the temperature curves shown in this paper,” Easterbrook told Climate Depot. “There is no way that the well documented, short-term climate changes can be orbitally driven because of the vastly longer time scales for orbital changes. Among the big surprises (and most significant) results of the ice core data is that the abrupt, short-term climate changes cannot be possibly be explained by orbital changes,” Easterbrook added.
Singer agreed, noting, “the Abstract tries to relate 20th century temperature changes to insolation changes (Fig 4) and claims these are 'orbitally' driven. This is highly unlikely: the temperature changes on a time scale of decades; orbital changes are much slower, and generally measured in millennia. I prefer [Harvard University Astrophysicist] Dr. Willie Soon's analysis of Arctic temperature changes."
The Washington Post does at least interview one scientist skeptical of man-made climate claims. The article reported: “Fred Singer, a prominent climate change skeptic who heads the Science and Environmental Policy Project, questioned the Science study on the grounds it does not properly reflect the fact that other researchers have found the Medieval Warm Period -- which lasted between 800 and 1,300 A.D. -- had 'higher temperatures than even the past 30 years.'”
Eilperin then goes on to claim that that the “documentation of the Medieval Warm Period is primarily about Europe, and natural records indicate average Arctic temperatures during that time were not as high. There was a brief period in the early fifth century that came close to, but was not quite as warm, as the Arctic's most recent summer temperatures.”
'Medieval Warm Period was real, global, and warmer than the present'
How sad, that Eliperin's refused to do basic research before making such a whopper of a claim. The latest research clearly reveals that the Medieval Warm Period (used to be referred to as the Medieval Climate Optimum) has been verified and was in fact global, not just confined to the Northern Hemisphere. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change reported in 2009 that the “Medieval Warm Period was: (1) global in extent, (2) at least as warm as, but likely even warmer than, the Current Warm Period, and (3) of a duration significantly longer than that of the Current Warm Period to date.”
In addition, The Science and Public Policy Institute reported in May 2009: “More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was real, global, and warmer than the present. And the numbers grow larger daily.”
After promoting the eco-group World Wildlife Fund's new climate study, the Washington Post also digs up a scientist with a woeful reputation, Robert Corell, and chooses not to identify his employment with the partisan Heinz Foundation, vice-chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry (who recently claimed: Global Warming Is The Next 9/11) Eilperin felt compelled to state that Fred Singer was a “skeptic” but the reporter felt no obligation to label any other scientists she cited in the article.
Reporter Eilperin wrote: “Robert Correll, who chairs the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, said the paper in Science will likely 'in the long haul become a seminal piece in the scientific literature" because it allows other climate researchers "to set their work in a long time scale.'”
First off, Eilperin misspelled Corell's name as “Correll.” Second, Eilperin could not find the space in her article to note Corell's affiliation with former Vice President Al Gore or his role in the left-wing Heinz Center or the fact that Corell, has been under fire for dubious climate claims. In addition, Corell has been linked to an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and he was reportedly sponsored by the left-leaning Packard Foundation.
Robert Corell Publicly Rebuked For Incorrect Climate Claims
Most shockingly, Corell was publicly rebuked for incorrect climate claims by a prominent scientist who studies Greenland in 2007. Corell made the assertion that he knew Greenland was being impacted by man-made global warming, stating: "I spent four months on the [Greenland] ice cap in 1968 and there was no melting at all." Corell did not even attempt to give a balanced historical view of Greenland's ice and temperature history. (for inconvenient report see: 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature debunks fears of Greenland melting)
But Corell's assertion in a September 8, 2007 UK Guardian article that earthquakes triggered by melting ice are increasing in Greenland was rebuffed by University of North Carolina's Jose Rial. Rial is a prominent climatologist/seismologist working on glacial seismic activity in Greenland. Corell's erroneous claim prompted Rial to take the unusual step of writing a letter to the UK Guardian.
"I also know that there is no evidence to suggest that these quakes 'are happening far faster than ever anticipated' [as Corell claimed,"] wrote Rial in a September 13, 2007 letter.
Rial criticized the newspaper for presenting a 'falling-sky' alarmist perspective and added that "it will take years of continued surveying to know whether anything here [in Greenland] is 'accelerating' towards catastrophe, as the article [featuring Corell] claims."
Corell has also been under fire for his work as the chair of the Arctic Impact Assessment report from 2004. This report was challenged immediately for its computer model generated scary scenarios of an alleged global warming ravaged future Arctic. See: Study Claiming Rapid Arctic Ice Melt Refuted at U.N.'s Climate Conference – Dec. 15, 2009
Corell currently serves as the Vice President of Programs at The Heinz Center, which gave a $250,000 award to NASA scientist James Hansen in 2001. Corell's personal relationship with former Vice President Al Gore, allowed him to enjoy a private screening of “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006. Corell is on record for giving former Gore's film two thumbs up for accuracy.
NYT Promotes 'National Security' Climate FearsBy Marc Morano
August 13, 2009
Desperation time has arrived for the promoters of man-made global warming fears. As the science of man-made climate fears continues to collapse, new tactics are being contrived to try to drum up waning public support.
A series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears continues unabated, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies, more evidence that rising CO2 is a boon for the atmosphere, and the Earth's failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion and even activists at green festivals are now expressing doubts over man-made climate fears and a Nobel Prize-winning economist is wishing for 'tornadoes' and 'a lot of horrid things' to convince Americans of a climate threat. (See "Related Links" at bottom of this article for more inconvenient scientific developments.)
The core of the claims made in the August 8, 2009 New York Times article by John M. Broder are stated as follows: “Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.”
The heart of the “national security” argument is merely a redux of the 1970's laughable scares about famines and resource scarcity. Those same baseless claims and fear mongering arguments are simply being shamelessly updated with a military uniform. It is sad to see members of our armed forces wearing their uniforms promoting such unsubstantiated and embarrassing drivel. (See: 'Just When You Thought Global Warming Couldn't Get More Stupid, In Walks John Kerry': 'Of all the ridiculous arguments in support of climate legislation, national security has to be the most idiotic' : Also see: Sound Familiar? 1977 CIA book warned a coming 'ICE AGE threatened to cause major migrations and mass starvations' )
Climate Depot's Inconvenient Rebuttal to “National Security” Climate Argument:
1) The "national security" angle is based on unproven computer models which even the United Nations IPCC admits are not “predictions.” UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth refers to climate models as “story lines.” “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers 'what if' projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature's blog on June 4, 2007. So the mighty New York Times is reporting that some members of the military, led by Sen. Kerry, are essentially playing no more than “what if” “war games!”Memo to New York Times and Senator Kerry: Climate Models “predictions” are not evidence. In addition, Ivy league forecasting pioneer Dr. Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania, found that the climate models used by UN IPCC to make these scary “predictions” or “what if projections” of the future, violate the basic principles of forecasting. “Of 89 principles [of forecasting], the UN IPCC violated 72,” Armstrong's research revealed on January 28, 2009. (Also See: Climate Models Likened to Sony 'PlayStation' Video Games & 'Tinker Toys' )
2) Aside from the fact that the "national security" angle rests on speculative doomsday scenarios, perhaps the biggest whopper of the new movement is the implication that we must pass the Congressional climate bill to "address" or "remedy" the problem and thus “avoid” future wars and loss of life. Left unanswered in this argument is how a climate bill that will have no detectable impact on global temperatures will help "solve" the alleged looming national security threat. Most shockingly, the Congressional climate bill would not even impact atmospheric CO2 levels according to the EPA!
3) The New York Time also makes the following remarkable assertion: “But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest.”
NYT Claim: “World's Rising temperatures?”: Huh? Is NYT must not be privy to latest temperature data showing a lack of warming for a decade and global cooling in recent years and peer-reviewed analysis showing the 20th century was not unusually warm?
NYT Claim: “Surging Seas.” Why did NYT reporter Broder fail to do a moment's worth of research on the alleged “surging seas?” If only Broder had taken a moment to look at the latest data. See: 'No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise' says Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute – December 12, 2008; Report: Sea Level rise 'has stumbled since 2005' – Meteorologist Anthony Watts – December 5, 2008; Renowned Sea Level expert predicts sea level 'will rise in the 21st century by about 8 inches' - April 23, 2009 & Global warming may not affect sea levels, study finds - January 11, 2008; Plus see June 2009 comprehensive sea level report,)
NYT Claim: “Melting Glaciers”: Contrary to the NYT's assertions, many glaciers are advancing. See: Alaskan glaciers at Icy Bay advance one-third of a mile in less than a year ; Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier advancing ; Hubbard Glacier in Alaska Advances ; Western Canadian glaciers advance ; 'Weather variations, not global warming cause Himalayan glaciers to melt' - August 8, 2009 ; Research Reveals global warming not cause of Kilimanjaro glacier reduction – September 24, 2008
4) The New York Times notes Sen. Kerry and others are “now beginning to make the national security argument for approving the [Congressional] legislation.”
The ridiculous assumption that mankind could realistically reduce emissions to alter future weather patterns has been exposed as "climate astrology." It is truly an insult to our men and woman in uniform to have Sen. Kerry and a small contingent of military brass attempting to sell these spurious climate claims. If we suspended basic science and reality and assumed Sen. Kerry was correct and the "undecided" Senators may be swayed to support a climate bill based on these alleged "national security" fears, how would a bill that did not impact CO2 levels or temperature be the "solution"? Sadly, the New York Times (and the ususally dependable Broder) did a completely one-sided article on this issue based.
NYT reporter Broder could have noted that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill isscientifically meaningless” in terms of reducing temperatures. Broder could have noted that even Obama's EPA has conceded that the Congressional climate bill would not even detectably reduce atmospheric CO2 levels!! (See: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson: “U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”) So the question looms, why would “undecided” Senators be swayed to vote for a climate bill for “national security” reasons when the bill is purely symbolic?! Broder irresponsibly failed to inform NYT readers of these basic truths. (Also see: No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a man-made 'climate crisis', we would all be doomed' & Climate policy reduced to 'magical solutions' -- 'all about symbolism...with little or no impact on real-world outcomes')
5) NYT's shameless quote of the day: “We will pay for this one way or another,” Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine and the former head of the Central Command. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives.”
Gen. Zinni needs to do his homework on global warming claims. Had the General done more research, he would quickly realize that the estimated 1.6 billion people in the world without electricity who are leading a nasty, brutish and short life, will be the ones who “will pay” for global warming solutions that prevent them from obtaining cheap and abundant carbon based energy. (See:1) It is a moral issue! – 'People cannot cook'...Chad's Global Warming Inspired Ban on Charcoal leads to 'Desperate' Families! - January 16, 2009 2) Black clergymen protest Robert Redford 'link his environmentalism to racism' 3) Poor Kenyans rebel as UK grocery store's “carbon friendly” policies may stop food exports – 4) African Activist: 'African life span is lower than it was in U.S. and Europe 100 years ago. But Africans told we shouldn't develop' because wealthy Western nations are 'worried about global warming': 'Telling Africans they can't have electricity and economic development – is immoral; 5) India: 'It is morally wrong for us to reduce emissions when 40% of Indians do not have access to electricity' ; 6) Obama Advisor Warren Buffett 'repeats criticism of cap and trade, saying it would be a huge, regressive tax') Sadly, Sen. Kerry and Gen. Zinni's unfounded “national security” climate claims will be the object of public humiliation for them in the not too distant future.
It is a testament to the growing strength of the skeptical scientific case against man-made climate fears that Sen. Kerry and retired VA Sen. John Warner (who sadly embarrassed himself in his final year in the Senate promulgating such "national security" climate drivel -- see: Fmr. Sen. Warner: 'There's a building base of evidence that global warming is contributing to much of the instability of the world today') have to resort to such transparent and yes...laughable claims. Science and history will issue a harsh judgment against Sen. Kerry and others for this silly "national security" argument. The reality is, global warming does pose a serious national security threat to the United States -- global warming "solutions"-- that is. The Senate is deliberating on a global warming cap-and-trade bill that will increase our dependence on foreign sources of energy, close refineries and cost American jobs. (See Bloomberg News: report from June 26, 2009: U.S. oil companies may cope with the climate legislation by "closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports." Bloomberg also reported that "one in six U.S. refineries probably would close by 2020" and this could "add 77 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline.")
Former Vice President Al Gore has touted the Congressional climate bill as a first step toward "global governance." "National security" will be a threat to the U.S. if it contemplates an international treaty which will inevitably lead to a loss of sovereignty for the U.S. as well as the imposition of some form carbon taxes. Americans should welcome a full debate about the merits of “national security” threat from man-made global warming. The more light that is shown on this line of reasoning, the more skeptical the public will grow. Dare we say: Bring it on.
[Update: Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo of IceCap.Us, notes that the new "national security" climate claims have a familiar ring to them. D'Aleo writes: "Take for example these excerpts from a 1977 book ”The Weather Conspiracy, the Coming of the New Ice Age” written for the CIA on the consensus of the climatologists of the time that an ice age threatened to cause major migrations and mass starvations."]
Dangerous Deception?Global Temperature, Withholding Critical EvidenceBy Dr. Tim Ball
Monday, August 10, 2009
“Half the work done in the world is to make things appear what they are not.” E.R. Beadle. Motive It is difficult and dangerous to impute motive. How and why a person acts in a certain way is usually difficult to determine. A particular course of action may be taken with the best of intentions yet cause considerable problems. However, certain actions although not definitive may expose the motive.
Critical EvidenceTwo pieces of evidence dominated recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports. They were instrumental in convincing the that world global warming due to humans was a scientifically indisputable fact. One was the graph known as the “hockey stick” because it purported to show little temperature change for approximately 1000 years then a sudden rise in the 20th century. The second was a global temperature increase of 0.6°C (1°F) in over 100 years, a rate claimed to be beyond any ‘natural’ increase.
The first is now fully discredited thanks primarily to the work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They carried out the standard scientific test of trying to reproduce the results obtained in the original work. They showed the almost flat line temperature of the hockey stick handle was artificially contrived. The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did exist but was eliminated by the tree ring samples and the statistical analytical technique chosen. It appears this was done to eliminate the troublesome MWP that contradicted that current global temperatures were the highest ever. It achieved what a climate scientist told Professor David Deming in an email was necessary as Deming explains: “With the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
The second piece of evidence, the claim of temperature increase, continues to dominate and is presented in many places as the truth.
The person primarily responsible for the number is P.D. Jones. He is currently Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England. In order to verify the number Warwick Hughes, an Australian climate researcher asked Jones how it was derived. He received the following reply on 21, February 2005. “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” Since then Jones has stonewalled every effort to obtain the information. But why is it so important? Surely, the raw data is available and all you have to do is use it to recreate the number.
Global TemperatureThe first problem is the original temperature increase was actually given as 0.6°C ± 0.2°C or a 66 percent error factor. It is a virtually meaningless number but still used to argue for warming. The raw data is retained by the originating country, which then submits modified data to central agencies such as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). Each year different groups calculate an annual global average including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). There are also the data sets maintained jointly between the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit called HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3.
When an annual average temperature is created each agency chooses different stations and modify the data for a variety of factors. The result is each produce different graphs as in Figure 1. In this case results from two satellite studies are included. Source:
So what we need to know is which stations Jones used and how he adjusted the data to achieve his result. We need to be able to carry out the standard reproducible results test applied to the hockey stick data. He continues to refuse to provide the information.
Withholding Information
In recent attempts to obtain the information the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) has become involved. As Steve McIntyre writes a bureaucrat was required to write the following in denying the information; Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept.
They are talking about data obtained by weather stations funded by the public. How that can be limited in its availability to anyone is impossible to understand. It is weather data so what possible strategic or national security risk can possibly be compromised? The data providers are other nations who provide it under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) that require open access.
Is there some proprietary right to how Jones has adjusted the data? Possibly, but surely that is offset by the fact that scientific work must be available to testing and confirmation by other scientists. It is the promoters of human induced global warming who have championed the need for peer review. I have spoken often about the two responsibilities with climate research. First is the scientific responsibility and Jones fails that by not revealing how the results were achieved. Then there is the social responsibility when you take your scientific findings public and they become the basis of policy. Jones fails that because his claimed temperature increase remains pivotal in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) argument. Now there is more disturbing evidence that Jones’ original data doesn’t bear examination. One of the major adjustments that vary considerably from station to station is for the urban heat island effect (UHIE). The IPCC refers to Jones et al. (1990) for its claim that the non-climatic bias due to urbanization is less than one-tenth of the global trend.
In other words they have rejected what everyone has known for a long time. More important, if urban stations dominate those used the false warming signal is enhanced. Now Jones is acknowledging the UHIE is greater than he allowed at least in China. As Warwick Hughes notes, ““Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1 degree per decade, hey that equates to a degree per century. Huge.”
The Damage is Done
If the UHIE is even half of this value for the rest of the world stations chosen by Jones then his claim of a 0.6°C increase virtually disappears. And so does the claim that human produced CO2 is causing warming because there is virtually no warming over the post-industrial period. We can speculate on Jones’ motive without resolution, however, we know to which half of the world’s work it belongs. It is more important to question how and why Jones has been able to deny access to information for so long. Who is to hold him to account? A world threatened with draconian and unnecessary energy and economic policies because of his silence should ask questions. We should also reject his claims and the IPCC reports based on his findings because we are unable to verify his results with standard scientific measures.

New York Times' Global Warming Hypocrisy
By Marc Morano
July 31, 2009
The media and climate fear promoters appear to be in overdrive trying to spin recent global cooling and particularly the "year without a summer" in many parts of the U.S. [See: Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore's film released and Climate Fear Promoters Try to Spin Record Cold and Snow: 'Global warming made it less cool' ]
The New York Times reports that the record cold of 2009 is due to natural variations and even warned skeptics of man-made global warming not to be "buoyed" by the brutal cold.
The New York Times' remarkable front page article on July 31, 2009 titled "In New York, It's the Summer That Isn't" by reporter Sam Roberts detailed the record breaking cold summer in New York. The article warned "this could be the coolest summer on record" and "this will have been the coolest June and July since either 1903 or 1881."
But the 2009 article explained "this summer's unusually mild temperatures should not buoy global warming skeptics."
Why? The Times has the answer, noting "a persistent high-level jet stream has sent cooler air streaming from the north and northwest."
Ok. Fair enough, "natural variations" caused a record cold breaking summer in 2009, according to the Times. But the question looms, how did the paper explain record warmth nearly a decade ago? Surely, if natural variations in climate can cause a record-breaking cold summer, then it would stand to reason that record breaking warmth would have a natural cause as well?
Not exactly. The Times effortlessly attributed record warmth back in 2000 to man-made global warming, noting the warm temperatures were "consistent" with model predictions. [Climate Depot Editor's Note: At least NYT is light years ahead of the BBC, which in true "climate astrology" fashion, blamed "intense" deadly cold on global warming! See: BBC: '250 children under the age of 5 died' due to freezing temps in Peru -- 'Experts blame climate change for the early arrival of intense cold' - July 12, 2009]
A March 11, 2000 New York Times article by reporter William K. Stevens entitled "U.S. Sets Another Record for Winter Warmth" had no hesitation in blaming record warmth on man-made global warming.
The article from 9 years ago noted: "Shorter and milder winters are consistent with a century-long global warming trend that mainstream scientists believe has been at least partly caused by emissions of heat-trapping waste industrial gases like carbon dioxide." [Climate Depot Editor's Note: Are the recent global cooling and record breaking cold "consistent" with global warming climate models? See: U.S. Government Scientist's Shock Admission: 'Climate Model Software Doesn't Meet the Best Standards Available' ]
The New York Times article from 2000 continued: "The warming has been especially significant in the last quarter-century, amounting to more than three times the century-long warming rate of about 1 degree Fahrenheit. Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue at that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced, and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in the winter."
''We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season'' based on the model projections, especially over the land masses of the Northern Hemisphere, Mike Changery, [a climatologist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C ] said" according to the 2000 article.
The New York Times article did -- belatedly -- add "the jury is still out" however on the complete causes of record warmth in 2000.
As the Earth has failed to warm, it continues to be great entertainment to watch the promoters of man-made climate fears and their message pushers in the mainstream media contort and squirm to explain the lack of heating. The media, sadly, continues to ignore major new developments in the global warming debate. See: Climate Revolt: World's Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to Be Removed! - July 29, 2009 & Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans' - July 22, 2009]
Global Temperatures Plunged .74°F Since Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'By Marc Morano
July 22, 2009
The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet another drop in the Earth's temperature. This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.
According to the latest data courtesy of algorelied.com: "For the record, this month's Al Gore / 'An Inconvenient Truth' Index indicates that global temperatures have plunged approximately .74°F (.39°C) since 'An Inconvenient Truth' was released." (see satellite temperature chart here with key dates noted, courtesy of www.Algorelied.com - The global satellite temperature data comes from the University of Alabama in Huntsville.)
Gore has not yet addressed the simple fact that global temperatures have dropped since the release of his global warming film. (Gore has also not addressed this: Another Moonwalker Defies Gore: NASA Astronaut Dr. Buzz Aldrin rejects global warming fears: 'Climate has been changing for billions of years' - Moonwalkers Defy Gore's Claim That Climate Skeptics Are Akin To Those Who Believe Moon Landing was 'Staged')
A record cool summer has descended upon many parts of the U.S. after predictions of the "year without a summer." There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years.
In addition, New peer-reviewed scientific studies now predict a continued lack of global warming for up to three decades as natural climate factors dominate. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009)
This means that today's high school kids being forced to watch Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth” – some of them 4 times in 4 different classes – will be nearly eligible for AARP (age 50) retirement group membership by the time warming resumes if these new studies turn out to be correct. (Editor's Note: Claims that warming will “resume” due to explosive heat in the "pipeline" have also been thoroughly debunked. See: Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. 'There is no warming in the pipeline')
Dems Dumped Cash On Members During Cap-and-Trade ArmtwistingImpose a massive energy tax on AmericansBy Matthew Vadum
Monday, July 20, 2009
Democratic leaders dumped a ton of cash on Democratic backbenchers in the days leading up to the critical cap-and-trade vote that would effectively impose a massive energy tax on Americans, the Politico reports:
Three House Democratic leaders who were whipping members on the climate change bill gave tens of thousands in campaign cash to party moderates around the time of the 219-212 vote on June 26, according to Federal Election Commission records.
It’s impossible to tell if that torrent of cash was an attempt to schmear wavering Democrats — or just part of the usual cash dump made by leaders on the eve of the June 30 quarterly fundraising deadline.
Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) doled out $28,000 to reps who eventually voted yes on June 24, two days before the big vote — on a day when House leaders were doing some heavy-duty arm-twisting.
Clyburn recipients who voted for the bill included a who’s-who of battleground district Dems: Steve Driehaus, D-OH ($2,000); Martin Heinrich, D-NM ($2,000); Suzanne Kosmas, D-Fla. ($4,000); Betsy Markey, D-Colo. ($2,000); Carol Shea-Porter, D-NH ($2,000), Baron Hill, D-Ind. ($2,000); Alan Grayson, D-Fla. ($2,000); Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa ($2,000); Jim Himes, D-Conn. ($2,000); Mary Jo Kilroy, D-OH ($2,000); Kurt Schrader, D-Ore. ($2,000); Jerry McNerney, D-Calif. ($2,000) and Tom Perriello, D-Va. ($2,000). [...]
Democrats respond by saying the Republicans did the same. The Politico article notes that Democratic leaders also gave money to lawmakers who voted against the bill.
Firestorm in Spokaneby Tom DeWeese
July 20, 2009
In March, 2009, I traveled to Spokane, Washington to address the annual Republican Lincoln Day Dinner. I reprinted my speech (Part 1, Part 2) in the April issue of The DeWeese Report (Vol. 15, Issue 4), under the tile, “The Wrenching Transformation of America.” That speech caused a firestorm in Spokane as I detailed exactly how an organization called the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is operating in more than 600 American communities (including Spokane). That group is guiding the local officials to impose Sustainable Development, the UN monster that transforms their community into a little soviet, with top-down control, robbing people of their private property, as it operates through non-elected boards and councils.
I explained in detail how ICLEI used the excuse of Climate Change to enforce these polices. Several people from my audience attended the Spokane City Council just two nights after my speech and confronted their local officials about what I had said. To their amazement, they found that every word I said was true. In fact, that very night, the city council was having the first reading of a sustainability plan for the community that ICLEI had helped prepare. It had been a year in the making and was now ready to be rammed through city council – unopposed.
That’s when the firestorm ignited. Warned by me, the local residents did everything they could to warn the community and block the plan. In the end, they lost in a vote of 5 – 2, but they were heard loud and clear and the battle is far from over.
One effort to stop the ICLEI plan was made by a physicist, Dr. Edwin Berry, from Bigfork, Montana. Dr. Berry attended my identical speech in Kalispell, Montana, just one week prior to the Spokane speech. We met and had a wonderful talk. After the firestorm hit Spokane, he volunteered to go there and make several speeches, adding his scientific expertise to follow up my talk. He also sent a letter to the Spokane city council, strongly urging them to vote no on the ICLEI proposal. I reprint his letter here in the hopes it will help other communities to understand the monster they face in implementing sustainable policy. I will also tell you what I told the audiences in Spokane and Kalispell – If ICLEI is in your town – run them out of town on a rail with some high quality tar and feathers.
Open Letter to the City of SpokaneBy Edwin X. Berry, PhD
We are partying on the train to AuschwitzSpokane signed on to the United Nations ICLEI Climate Protection Campaign in 2001. Since then, the city has spent money, resources and time attempting to comply with the requirements of ICLEI. The rationale for the program was to comply with the United Nations sponsored Kyoto Protocol to reduce GHG emissions.
The basis for the rationale is the United Nations Summary Reports for Policymakers of several years. The City of Spokane assumed that the United Nations IPCC made truthful statements about the effects of GHG emissions and especially carbon dioxide emissions on the earth's climate.
We now know without a shadow of doubt that the UN IPCC lied and is still lying about the effects of our carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions on climate.
Most blatantly, the IPCC represented to the City a chart of the supposed carbon dioxide content of our atmosphere for the last 10,000 years.
This chart claims carbon dioxide concentration was below about 280 ppm until present times and suggests that only recently have human emissions caused the carbon dioxide concentration to increase dramatically to the present 385 ppm.
The IPCC further claims our emissions, if not curtailed, will cause carbon dioxide concentration to continue to increase with the result being a significant increase in global temperature.
These IPCC claims are lies and a fraud.The truth shows that the City has been subject to this fraud of the highest order. This fraud has causing significant damage and harm to the citizens of Spokane and if continued, it will cause very serious damage. Indeed, it is the opinion of this writer that the City has a legal basis for a cause of action against those who have perpetuated this fraud.
To respond to the carbon dioxide claim, true scientific data show that we had higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in 1820 and 1940 than we do now.
True atmospheric science shows that we had periods in the last 10,000 years when carbon dioxide was much higher than shown on the IPCC ICLEI chart. True atmospheric science shows that ocean temperatures, not human emissions, control our earth's carbon dioxide concentrations. True atmospheric science shows that carbon dioxide has negligible effect on climate, does not drive climate but only piggybacks on natural climate change.
Prior to the promotion of the global warming fraud, the UN IPCC had access to scientific information that disproved its hypothesis that human carbon dioxide causes significant global warming.
Nevertheless, the UN IPCC produced Summary Reports for Policymakers that ignored and contradicted the input of scientists. The IPCC claimed to have a "consensus" of scientists on its side when it did not and does not.
Participating scientists who were betrayed by the UN IPCC Summary Reports wrote an Open Letter to the IPCC which states the scientific truth.
Here is a summary of the 2007 Open Letter signed by 101 scientists:1- UN IPCC reports do not represent the input, views or consensus of scientists. 2- Changes in glaciers, sea-level, species, etc., are not evidence of abnormal climate change. 3- Climate models cannot predict climate (even IPCC reps agree). 4- Significant peer-reviewed research has discredited the global warming hypothesis. 5- We need more low-cost, reliable energy to adapt to natural climate change. 6- There is no scientific basis to cut CO2 emissions. 7- It is not shown that CO2 alters climate. 8- It is not possible to stop climate change. 9- The “precautionary principal” is irrational. 10- Reducing CO2 emissions is a tragic misallocation of resources. 11- Reducing CO2 emissions will decrease our ability to adapt to climate change. 12- Reducing CO2 emissions will increase human suffering.
Here are the 2009 conclusions of the Japanese Science Society:1- The earth warming is not due to CO2. 2- Solar activity drives global temperatures. 3- The 1500-year solar cycle is confirmed. 4- The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, not CO2, drives temperatures. 5- We are now entering 20-30 years of cooling. 6- The IPCC global warming hypothesis is invalid.
The UN IPCC, ICLEI and all supporting groups like the Sierra Club, knowingly and purposely perpetuated a fraud upon the citizens of the City of Spokane. Their purpose is their own political agenda.
This sustainability proposal, and its companion proposals in some 400 cities across America, is but a small step to brainwash Americans into believing they must give up their abundant energy sources in order to save the planet. This is an evil delusion.
Once these small steps are locked in, the agenda of our enemies will continue with the help of our laws, some lawyers, our brainwashed citizens and our elected politicians.
This agenda, my dear friends, is nothing less than to dramatically reduce the standard of living of America and turn America into a third world country. The seemingly nice, feely-goody sustainability proposals are evil steps leading America to self-imposed destruction.
Here are some of the invalid assumptions built in to the sustainability proposal.
1- natural is optimal (natural is not defined) 2- climate is fragile 3- climate change can be mitigated 4- our carbon dioxide emissions change our climate 5- carbon dioxide is bad and dirty 6- oil is bad 7- oil is going to disappear soon (peak oil) 8- green is good 9- green jobs are good 10- alternative energy is good 11- wind energy is good 12- by omission, nuclear is bad 13- packing people in a city is good 14- living outside a city is bad 15- energy costs are world controlled 16- we cannot produce cheap, reliable energy in America
These assumptions are not supported by science or technology. These assumptions are brainwashing. Sustainability is built on a foundation of sand. It consists not of truth but of feelings.
Sustainability is a religion. Governmental enforcement of a religion is against the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Sustainability forces decisions to be made on unfounded criteria. It forces decisions to favor more costly alternatives. In the end it will help destroy our economy.
The false assumptions in the sustainability proposal are used to support the following scientifically false and economically costly conclusions:
1- emphasize renewable energy 2- replace hydrocarbon fuels with ethanol, even though it emits more CO2 than using hydrocarbon fuels and it increases food costs 3- promote and track carbon sequestration 4- make it expensive for people to outside a city 5- the energy saving value of packing people in a city trumps the personal desire to live outside a city 6- incentivize green jobs and green businesses 7- reduce city's oil consumption and GHG emissions 8- reduce vehicle size 9- use electric vehicles 10- reporting systems and bureaucracies to monitor GHGs 11- hire sustainability officers 12- coordinate sustainability efforts 13- align efforts with federal efforts 14- create a culture of sustainability
All of the above are costs that can be eliminated from government. They should be eliminated because they waste voters money.
Damages from the fraud include all the direct costs to implement the ICLEI GHG agenda.
They include indirect costs of the lost time and resources to pursue proper economic goals because of the diversion of the ICLEI agenda.They include the indirect costs of promoting wind energy as a substitute for coal, oil and nuclear. Wind energy would not be cost competitive without federal income tax credits. But the tax credits merely shift the cost burden from an electric bill to federal taxes. They transport wealth from the middle class to the super rich. A hidden cost of wind energy is the steel, concrete and transmission lines.
A hidden cost is the investment necessary for utilities to rebuild their facilities to accommodate wind's unpredictable, variable power source on the electric grid. A hidden cost is the permanent damage done to the land.
If renewable means the ability to return nature and land to its original state then wind farms to not meet the definition of renewable.
All these costs are ignored by the sustainability delusion.
Do you see where this is leading?On May 11, the New York Times announced that China has emerged as a leader in clean coal technology. And "clean" does not here mean carbon sequestration. Clean means achieving 44% fuel efficiency while the best America has done to date is 40%.
Clean means removing all the particulates, sulfur and undesirable emissions with the exception of carbon dioxide which is not really undesirable anyway. It helps plants grow and return the oxygen back to our atmosphere. Sequestered carbon dioxide never returns the oxygen back to our atmosphere.
While the Sierra Club brags about stopping 82 of 150 of America's planned coal-electric power plants since the year 2000 on the basis of the global warming fraud and boasts it will easily stop the rest under Obama, China is building one super efficient coal power plant per month.
Do you understand what is happening?
America could shut down today and stop all its carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions. Americans could disappear off the face of the earth. China, meanwhile, will continue to build its energy resources, and emit far more carbon dioxide than America saved by committing suicide. And in the year 2100 the self destruction of America and China's carbon dioxide will not have changed the global temperature by 0.000 degrees from whatever nature has planned for the earth. The only thing that will have changed is America. It will be gone.
Do you see where this train is going?China is on its way to becoming the world's next superpower. America is on its way to becoming China's next slave. Wake up, America. Continue as you are and within 10 years your dumbed-down Americans will supply the labor now being provided by China's slave camps. You will build the world's mercury-laden lamp bulbs and die after 30 years. You will support China's new standard of living.
China will own your National Parks, your national forests, your vast coal and oil reserves, your technology, your universities, and your house. China will be your master and you will be China's slave. Your children will be crammed into your sustainability cities which will not be as pleasant as you may dream. Your masters won't care if your garbage is removed or if you have hot water. You will not be free to drive to the country, hike in your hills, learn about the world or even to be educated.
You will work six days per week in slave camps. You will be brainwashed animals who cannot escape. Gone will be your churches. Gone will be your freedom. You will know only the propaganda of their masters. All future generations of Americans will be slaves. Their only hope will be that some miracle will happen, that a future Moses will appear to free them.
You who support the slippery path of sustainability, who are consumed by the global warming delusion, who pay no attention as your country slides toward self destruction, you are the useful idiots carrying out the plan of your world super masters.
Somewhere in our beautiful but dangerous world the super masters are raising their glasses to toast their coming success in their little game: to bring down America as the world's super power without firing a shot and to raise up China and make it America's master. It is their little experiment. It is their power trip. We are but their puppets.
Do you understand how to take control of a country?The way to destroy a country is to take away its energy production, remove its will to resist its own destruction, and to dumb down its citizens. We are so brainwashed, we are allowing these to happen. The final step will remove our ability to prevent our own destruction. At some point, we will be unable to defend our country and our homes.
Get off the train now before it reaches its destination.
You elected officials of the great City of Spokane have two clear choices: You can vote YES to perpetuate the global warming fraud, sponsor an earth worship religion, and to send Spokane and America to its eventual destruction. Or you can vote NO to become the first city in America to reject the sustainability fraud and send Spokane and America on a path to enlightenment and recovery.
NO is a vote for Good. YES is a vote for Evil.
Spokane, you can save America.
Climate Bill Spells “Skyrocketing” Energy Rates, Unemployment, Less FreedomBy Sarah Foster
July 14, 2009
© 2009 NewsWithViews.com
WASHINGTON – It was close, but late Friday, June 26, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the highly controversial H.R. 2998 (originally H.R. 2454): The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) -- called informally the “Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill” after its cosponsors Henry Waxman, Calif., and Ed Markey, Mass., both Democrats. The bill now awaits action by the Senate.
This was the first time either house of Congress had approved legislation designed to curb “greenhouse gases” that many believe contribute to “global warming” and climate change. The vote was 212-219. Forty-four Democrats voted No, and without the Yes-votes of eight Republicans it would have gone down in defeat.
President Obama hailed the historic passage, as did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who led the charge in ramming the bill through the House, determined to secure approval by July 4.
“We passed transformational legislation, which will take us into the future,” Pelosi boasted at a press conference following the roll call.
And in a derisive slap at the grassroots opposition that bombarded congressional offices with emails, faxes and phone calls, she declared: “For some it was a difficult vote because the agents of the status quo were out there full force, jamming the lines in their districts and here [in D.C.], but [the representatives] withstood that.” It would definitely be “transformational.” Waxman-Markey is arguably the most sweeping, far-reaching measure Congress has ever considered in terms of its impact on the U.S. economy, industry and standard of living – and the most costly.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio called it “the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives.”
Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), describes it as “a massive tax hike that would vastly expand the federal government’s power over the economy. Indeed, [Waxman-Markey] would be the largest tax increase in world history, [would] transfer vast wealth from consumers to big-business special interests.
“And it would put Washington in charge of people’s lives in a way not seen since the Second World War – which was the last time Americans needed ration coupons to buy gasoline, food and other commodities,” he warned.Yet despite its magnitude, the Democrat-controlled House voted to allow just three hours of debate for the bill itself, plus half an hour for a 309-page Manager’s Amendment (H.R. 2998) by Waxman that was dropped in the hopper at 3 a.m. that morning.
Nobody had read the entire measure, let alone the amendment, when they voted: copies weren’t even available. Moreover, it had grown from about 950 pages to an eyeball-glazing 1,510 in the five days before the vote (that’s including the amendment).
“Unfortunately, this is the New World Order,” said Andrew Moylan, Director of Government Affairs at the National Taxpayers Union (NTU). “Where we have bills that are written in secret, are debated in no time at all, get passed into law – and we find out what little cookies are in there for us after the fact.”
(For lists of some of the hundreds of “cookies” in the Manager’s Amendment click here and here.)
The High Cost of Going Green
The goal of Waxman-Markey is to decrease the level of carbon dioxide and five other “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere. These gases occur naturally (CO2, in particular, is necessary for plant life), but levels are said to be increased by the burning of carbon-based fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) during energy production that provides 85 percent of U.S. electricity.
That increase is alleged to contribute to “global warming” – though this is widely disputed, as is the theory that there’s any global warming at all. Contrary to claims of Waxman-Markey supporters, such as former Vice President Al Gore, the scientific community is divided over whether there is global warming and if there is, what causes it and what to do about it.
[Read: "Global Warming Challenged" by Willian Hunt]
The bill mandates that 20 percent of U.S. electricity comes from “renewable” sources. Electric and gas utilities, refineries, cement plants, steel foundries and other companies would be required to lower the amount of CO2 emitted from their smokestacks 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and down to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.
This will be done through an elaborate permitting process called cap-and-trade that requires companies to have one emission permit – in effect, a ration coupon -- for every ton of CO2 emitted from their smokestacks. The government will set a cap for the maximum amount of CO2 emission, and ratchet the cap down over time -- in theory, forcing companies to invest in lower-carbon technologies such as wind and solar.
Critics predict huge hikes in the cost of lighting, heating, air cooling, and transportation – any activity that depends on electricity or gasoline – plus increases in the price of food and consumer goods and serious unemployment. Overall costs are estimated to range anywhere from $2 trillion to $9 trillion.
“We’re talking about adding hundreds of billions of dollars per year in added costs to energy,” Moylan told NewsWithViews. “That’s something that people are not going to have a choice about if they want to keep the lights on, drive to work and get the kids to school.”
Just before the vote the Congressional Budget Office released figures purporting to show that the cost to the average household would be only $175 a year by 2020. An earlier estimate by CBO had set the tab at $1,600 a year.
Except for this conveniently released report by the CBO, there are virtually no one is claiming that Waxman-Markey is going to be cheap – not even the president for whom it’s a top priority measure.
Obama: “Electricity Rates Will Skyrocket”
In a famous interview with editors of the San Francisco Chronicle (Jan. 17, 2008), then-Senator Obama admitted the price of electricity would go up. Way up. In his words:
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket … because I’m capping greenhouse gases -- coal power plants, natural gas, you name it -- whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money; they will pass that [cost] on to consumers.”
Obama further explained how it would be necessary to persuade the American people that although there would be “some increase” in electricity rates, “over the long term -- because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, and changing light bulbs, more efficient appliances, but also technology in proving how we can produce clean energy -- the economy will benefit.”
He did not promise that rates would eventually come down or even that it would be possible to develop the necessary technology. He only said that the economy would “benefit” and the argument must be made “persuasively enough” for Americans to accept the plan.
At the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, researchers crunched numbers and came up with some specifics about the first 23 years of a project that’s planned to go on for the next 90 years.
According to Heritage findings, under Waxman-Markey the cost of electricity will soar 90 percent between 2012 and 2035; gasoline prices will rise 58 percent; and residential natural gas, 55 percent. A family of four can expect its annual energy bill to be raised by $1,241. (Figures are adjusted for inflation, and assume a 36 percent cut in energy use by consumers trying to adjust to escalating costs.)
That $1,241 yearly energy bill is just the direct increase in energy prices. As energy prices go up, the costs of making consumer goods will follow and businesses will pass these along in the form of higher prices. From the Heritage Foundation's analysis:
“As the higher production costs ripple through the economy, household pocketbooks get hit again and again. When all the direct and indirect energy tax impacts have been added up, family-of-four costs will rise by $2,979 per year on the average over the 2023-2035 timeframe. In 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609.”
With the slowing of the economy, unemployment will go up on average 1,145,000 a year in lost jobs, with peak years seeing unemployment of over 2.4 million jobs gone.
Then there’s the national debt: “By 2035 Waxman-Markey will have driven the national debt 26 percent above what it would be without the legislation, and that represents an additional $28,728 per person, or $114,915 for a family of four.”
Energy Rationing Ahead?
Steve Milloy, co-director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research and publisher of JunkScience.com, foresees a particularly bleak future of contrived shortages, a higher cost of living, and less personal freedom.
“Worse than the increased cost of energy, perhaps, is that the Waxman-Markey bill will essentially result in artificial limits on energy production and, ultimately, electricity rationing,” Milloy predicts. “The bill will create a permanent energy crisis.”
This will necessarily lead to restrictions on personal activities. “A nation’s standard of living is ultimately based upon the use of energy, be it for work or play,” writes naturalist William Hunt, in a piece for NewsWithViews.
Cooking, heating one’s house, mowing the lawn, cooking, driving to the grocery store, going to the beach on the weekend – “All of these represent freedoms, both nationally and personally. The ability to get into a car and drive is an incredible freedom that most of the world does not have,” Hunt observes.
If the price of gasoline is artificially increased 58 percent, low-income families and individuals would be hard-pressed to pay for it and forced to change their driving habits, perhaps giving up driving altogether.
“These, and indeed all other measures suggested by politicians, regulators and NGOs to deal with global warming [cap and trade, carbon taxes] are about controlling what you do with your life by controlling energy,” says Hunt. “All such things do is to raise the price consumers have to pay for basic needs. They harm the poor most of all by hitting them by raising the costs for basic costs like heat, light, water, sewer, food, gasoline for commuting to work, and every consumer good— clothes, soap, cars, everything.”
Waxman-Markey vs. the Laws of Thermodynamics
“What they’re doing is raising the cost of traditional energy so high that it would be feasible to invest in alternate technologies,” says Andrew Moylan.
“Today, alternative technologies – as great as they may seem to people – are very expensive. It’s not that people desperately want to destroy the environment that they’re not investing in them. They don’t invest in them because they’re extremely expensive. So if you raise the cost of traditional energy so high that it makes other technologies more palatable in terms of cost, there’s going to be more investment in those.”
Whether these will work or not is another question.
Keith Rattie, CEO of Utah-based Questar Corp., is one of the many global-warming skeptics who doesn’t think they will, and he explained why in a talk he gave to the graduating class of Utah Valley University this April.
Said Rattie: “Why has my generation failed to develop wind and solar? Because our energy choices are ruthlessly ruled, not by political judgments, but by the immutable laws of thermodynamics. In engineer-speak, turning diffused sources of energy such as photons in sunlight or the kinetic energy in wind requires massive investment to concentrate that energy into a form that’s usable on any meaningful scale.
“What’s more, the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. Unless or until there’s a major breakthrough in high-density electricity storage – a problem that has confounded scientists for more than 100 years – wind and solar can never be relied upon to provide base load power.”
The Fundamental QuestionAnd in the end, will it be worth it?
“That’s the issue,” said Moylan. “I’m no climate expert, but the folks who are say that even if everything goes according to their plan – which is unlikely – global temperatures might be reduced by one-tenth of one degree by the year 2050.
“I guess that’s the fundamental question: Is one-tenth of one degree reduction in temperature under the best of circumstances worth $2 trillion in costs? I would say no. I would hope that most rational people say the answer is no. But it seems symbolism has been elevated above science in the debate.”
Moonwalkers Defy Al Gore's Claim
By Marc Morano
July 11, 2009
Washington, DC – At a House global warming hearing on Capitol Hill on April 24, 2009, former Vice President Al Gore once again compared skeptics of man-made climate fears to “people who still believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona." Gore appears ignorant that his several years old analogy has been refuted by two of NASA's moonwalkers themselves -- Moonwalker and Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist Jack Schmittwho recently declared he was a global warming skeptic and now, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut and Moonwalker Dr. Buzz Aldrin.
Gore was not asked during his April 24, 2009 Congressional hearing how he can link climate skeptics to people who believed the moon landing was "staged" when two prominent moonwalkers themselves are man-made global warming skeptics.
NASA's Dr. Aldrin -- who earned a Doctorate of Science in Astronautics at MIT -- declared he was skeptical of man-made climate fears in a July 3, 2009 UK Telegraph interview.
"I think the climate has been changing for billions of years," Aldrin, the second person to walk on the Moon, said. On July 20, 1969, Aldrin and astronaut Neil Armstrong made their historic Apollo 11 moonwalk, becoming the first two humans to set foot on the Moon. According to his bio, "Aldrin has received three U.S. patents for his schematics of a modular space station, Starbooster reusable rockets, and multi-crew modules for space flight." Aldrin was also decorated with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest American peacetime award and he has received numerous distinguished awards and medals from 23 other countries.
"If it's warming now, it may cool off later. I'm not in favor of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today," Aldrin explained.
"I'm not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it," Aldrin added.
Aldrin joins fellow moonwalker Schmitt, who flew on the Apollo 17 mission, in declaring their skepticism of man-made global warming fears.
"The 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities," Schmitt, who flew on the Apollo 17 mission, said in 2008. (See: Astronaut Jack Schmitt Joins Skeptics & For Gore, a very inconvenient moonwalker.)
Schmitt is featured in the 2009 report: U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claim.
Below is Schmitt's full entry in the Senate's 700 Plus Scientist Report:
Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey, who flew on the Apollo 17 mission, has received numerous awards in his career including the Space Center Superior Achievement Award and the NASA Distinguished Service Medal. Schmitt, a member of the Geological Society of America, American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, rejected man-made climate change concerns in 2008. "The 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making.
It has no place in the Society's activities," Schmitt wrote on November 17, 2008. "As a geologist, I love Earth observations. But it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a "consensus" that humans are causing global warming when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise. 'Consensus,' as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science," Schmitt explained.
Obama's Cap and Trade Carbon Emissions Bill - A Stealth Scheme to License Pollution and FraudBy Stephen Lendman
URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14297
Global Research, July 10, 2009
On May 15, HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA) was introduced in the House purportedly "To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy." In fact, it's to let corporate polluters reap huge windfall profits by charging consumers more for energy and fuel as well as create a new bubble through carbon trading derivatives speculation. It does nothing to address environmental issues, yet on June 26 the House narrowly passed (229 - 212) and sent it to the Senate to be debated and voted on. More on that below.
On March 31, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey released a "discussion draft" of the proposed legislation and falsely claimed:
-- it's "a comprehensive approach to America's energy policy that charts a new course towards a clean energy economy;" it will
-- create millions of clean energy jobs....that can't be shipped overseas;
-- put America on the path to energy independence;
-- reduce our dependence on foreign oil;
-- save money by the billions;
-- unleash energy investment by the trillions;
-- cut global warming pollution;
-- strengthen our economy;" and
-- make "America the world leader in new clean energy and energy efficiency technologies."
Strong-arm pressure, threats and bribes got the bill through the House. Forty-four Democrats opposed it. Eight Republicans backed it. Over 1200 pages long, few if any lawmakers read it.
After passage, Chairman Markey said:
"It's been an incredible six months to go from a point where no one believed we could pass this legislation to a point now where we can begin to say that we are going to send President Obama to Copenhagen in December as the leader of the world on climate change."
Speaker Pelosi praised the bill as "transformational legislation which takes us into the future" and added that after passage she took congratulatory calls from Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Al Gore. The former vice-president has long-standing ties to Goldman Sachs (GS), and in 2004 he and David Blood, CEO of GS's asset management division until 2003, co-founded Generation Investment Management LLC, a firm likely to profit greatly from cap and trade schemes.
In a prepared June 25 statement ahead of the House vote, Obama said:
"Right now, the House of Representatives is moving toward a vote of historic proportions on a piece of legislation that will open the door to a new, clean energy economy."
After citing the same false claims as Waxman and Markey, he called the legislation "balanced and sensible" and "urge(d) every member of Congress - Democrats and Republicans - to come together and support" it.
Polluters love it. So does Wall Street and corporate-friendly environmental groups like the Environmental Defense Fund. The opposition, however, includes Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Public Citizen.
In a joint May 13 press release, they were "extremely troubled (about) compromises to the already flawed American Clean Energy & Security Act."
It contains enough loopholes to make its claimed performance standards worthless, one of which prohibits the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate future greenhouse gas emissions. That alone means they'll proliferate beyond what new technology reduces on its own, and only then if it's profitable to do it.
On June 23, Friends of the Earth president Brent Blackwelder said:
"Corporate polluters including Shell and Duke Energy helped write this bill, and the result is that we're left with legislation that fails to come anywhere close to solving the climate crisis. Worse, the bill eliminates preexisting EPA authority to address global warming - that means it's actually a step backward."
A June 25 Greenpeace press release stated:
"As it comes to the floor, the Waxman-Markey bill sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions."
On June 27, Public Citizen (PC) called the bill "a new legal right to pollute (that) gives away 85 percent of (its) credits to polluters. (It) will not solve our climate crisis but will enrich already powerful oil, coal and nuclear power companies." PC wants polluters to cut their emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 and pay for credits, not get them free. It also cited the American Wind Energy Association saying that the renewable standard will deliver "effectively zero" new ones.
PC wants consumers protected, not charged a "carbon tax....The bill doesn't, but should, provide money to help homeowners pay for such things as weatherization or to receive rebates for rooftop solar." Its main "consumer protection provision distributes free pollution allowances to electric and natural gas utilities (on the assumption) that the 50 different state utility commissions will redirect all that money back to consumers." In fact, HR 2454 is a thinly-veiled scheme to let companies profit from polluted air, in part financed by a consumer "carbon tax."
Big Coal gets a waiver until 2025. Agribusiness is exempt altogether even though it's responsible for up to one-fourth of greenhouse gas emissions. The nuclear industry will benefit hugely from the free allowances provision. A leaked memo had Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power company, bragging that it will reap a $1 - $1.5 billion annual windfall.
Overall, carbon trading is a scam, first promoted in the 1980s under Reagan. Clinton made it a key provision of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. He signed it in 1998, but it was never ratified. As of February 2009, 183 nations did both, but independent scientists call it "miserable failure" needing to be scrapped and replaced by a meaningful alternative.
ACESA is about profits, not environmental remediation. Its emissions reduction targets are so weak, they effectively license pollution by creating a new profit center to do it.
The Next Bubble
Wall Street also will reap a huge bonanza through carbon trading derivatives speculation exploiting what Commodity Futures Trading commissioner Bart Chilton believes will be a $2 trillion market - "the biggest of any (commodities) derivatives product in the next five years." Others see a future annual market potential of up to $10 trillion based on these schemes:
-- government-issued cap and trading carbon allowance permits to let polluters emit a designated amount of greenhouse gases; those exceeding the limit can buy rights for more from companies below their limit;
-- carbon offsets that let companies emit excess greenhouse gases provided they invest in projects purportedly cutting them elsewhere, either domestically or abroad; they can also fulfill their obligation by stretching out investments for up to 40 years - far enough ahead to avoid them altogether; and
-- besides trading allowances and offsets, polluters and Wall Street can play the derivatives game, including with futures contracts for a designated number of allowances at an agreed on price for a specified date.
According to Robert Shapiro, former Undersecretary of Commerce in the Clinton administration: "We are on the verge of creating a new trillion dollar market (through) financial assets that will be securitized, derivatized, and speculated by Wall Street like the mortgage-backed securities market" and all others that inflated bubbles that burst. If cap and trade becomes law, this market will explode so Wall Street is pressuring senators to pass it.
According to the Center of Public Integrity (CPI), around "880 total businesses and groups....reported they were seeking to influence climate change policy" as addressed in HR 2454. Representing 770 of them are "an estimated 2340 lobbyists," a 300% increase in the past five years, or more than "four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress."
In 2003, Wall Street employed none on climate issues. CPI says it now has 130 representing the usual players like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and others, and why so is simple - to create a huge new revenue stream to make up for ones lost with perhaps others in the wings, thus far not revealed. Waxman - Markey delivered splendidly, setting the stage for another bubble if HR 2454 becomes law with huge pressure now on senators to assure it.
Warning: Cap and Trade Bubble Ahead
On July 1, Catherine Austin Fitts' Solari.com blog headlined "The Next Really Scary Bubble" in stating:
"If you think the housing and credit bubble diminished your financial security and your community, or the bailouts, or the rising gas prices did as well, hold on to your hat" for what's coming. "Carbon trading is gearing up to make the housing and derivative bubbles look like target practice."
She quoted Rep. Geoff Davis calling it "a scam," Rep. Devin Nunes saying it's a "massive transfer of wealth" from the public to polluters and Wall Street, Rep. James Sensenbrenner stating "Carbon markets can and will be manipulated using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial crisis," and Dennis Kuchinich citing "The best description to date (to) be found in Matt Taibbi's....'The Great American Bubble Machine: From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs (GS) has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression - and they are about to do it again.' "
Taibbi calls GS the "world's most powerful investment bank....a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." It operates by positioning itself "in the middle of (every) speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap."
They control Washington and profit by extracting "vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that (lets it) rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies (it)throws (back as) political patronage."
When inflated bubbles burst "leaving millions of ordinary (people) broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again (inflating new bubbles and) lending us back our own money at interest...." They've been at this since the 1920s and are "preparing to do it again (with) what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet" - a new cap and trade derivatives scam written into HR 2454 with GS positioned to profit most from it. Taibbi calls its market edge a position of "supreme privilege (and) explicit advantage" ahead of all others on the Street.
Contributing $4,452,585 to Democrats in 2008 (around $1 million to Obama) was mere pocket change for what it can reap from scams like cap and trade disguised as an environmental plan. The scheme was devised. GS helped write it. The House passed it and sent it to the Senate. Unless stopped, it will transfer more of our wealth to corporate polluters and Wall Street on top of all they've stolen so far from derivatives fraud and the imploded housing and other bubbles. And Goldman will lead the way finding new ways to do it until there's nothing left to extract.
Chicago has its coolest July 8 in 118 yearsBy Tom Skilling
July 9, 2009
For the 12th time this meteorological summer (since June 1), daytime highs failed to reach 70 degrees Wednesday. Only one other year in the past half century has hosted so many sub-70-degree days up to this point in a summer season -- 1969, when 14 such days occurred.
Wednesday's paltry 65-degree high at O'Hare International Airport (an early-May-level temperature and a reading 18 degrees below normal) was also the city's coolest July 8 high in 118 years -- since a 61-degree high on the date in 1891.
Rains on Wednesday were bothersome but generally light in the city, where 0.20 inches fell at Midway Airport. Heavier rains were recorded well west and southwest of Chicago, including an unofficial report of 0.93 inches at DeKalb and 0.60 inches in Pontiac.
Sunshine re-emerges Thursday and should boost temperatures back into the 80s. Southeast winds off Lake Michigan will limit shoreline highs to the mid-and-upper 70s. An isolated thunderstorm may bubble to life in far western sections of the area late in the day.
Frost in July hits P.E.I.
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 8, 2009
CBC News
Temperatures dropped to a record low in Prince Edward Island overnight Tuesday, with reports of frost throughout the province.
An official record low of 3.8 C was set early Wednesday morning at Charlottetown airport.
The previous record for that date was 5.1 C, set in 2005.
Bob Robichaud, a meteorologist with Environment Canada, said that to his knowledge, frost has never been reported before in July in P.E.I.
"That 3.8 we got last night kind of sticks out as being lower than some of the other records for anytime in early July," Robichaud told CBC News on Wednesday.
"So we're looking at a significant event," he said.
Environment Canada has issued a frost risk warning in low-lying areas of the province for Wednesday night. The temperature is expected to dip to 4 C.
The forecast for Thursday, however, calls for sunny skies and a temperature of 22 C for the province.
In Close Vote, House Passes Climate Bill
Measure Aims to Change Energy Use
By Steven Mufson, David A. Fahrenthold and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers, Saturday, June 27, 2009
The House narrowly passed an ambitious climate bill yesterday that would establish national limits on greenhouse gases, create a complex trading system for emission permits and provide incentives to alter how individuals and corporations use energy.
The bill passed 219 to 212 after a furious lobbying push by the White House and party leaders won over farm-state Democrats who had complained that it was too costly, and liberals who wondered if it was too watered down to work. Even after that effort, 44 Democrats voted against the legislation.
The bill, if it became law, would lead to vast changes in the ways energy is made, sold and used in the United States -- putting new costs over time on electricity from fossil fuels and directing new billions to "clean" power from sources such as the wind and the sun.
It would require U.S. emissions to decline 17 percent by 2020. To make that happen, the bill would create an economy that trades in greenhouse gases. Polluters would be required to buy "credits" to cover their emissions; Midwestern farmers, among others, could sell "offsets" for things they didn't emit; and Wall Street could turn those commodities into a new market.
Delaying the vote, Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) spoke for about an hour, reading long sections of a 300-page amendment unveiled at 3 a.m. yesterday.
When the bill finally passed, with eight Republicans voting yes, supporters praised it as a major milestone in the fight to slow climate change. Earlier attempts to cap emissions had stalled in Congress; this bill's surprisingly swift passage in the House marked a political victory for President Obama and Democratic leaders.
Obama had made the bill one of his two major domestic priorities, along with health-care reform. And this week he stepped in, lobbying some undecided lawmakers, playing down the costs to consumers and promoting the measure as a "jobs bill" that would create opportunities in the renewable-energy and energy-efficiency sectors.
One of the bill's co-sponsors, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), said: "The American people wanted change in our energy and climate policy. And this is the change that the people are overwhelmingly asking for." He called it "the most important energy and environment bill in the history of our country."
The drive to regulate greenhouse gases now moves to the Senate, where passing climate legislation could prove more difficult.
House conservatives blasted the more than 1,300-page bill, saying it would add crushing costs to energy and ship millions of jobs to countries such as China that do not have climate regulations. They also said there was a lack of clarity in the bill's provision to create carbon offsets, certificates in which companies in the United States and overseas could claim credit for avoiding emissions or taking them out of the air.
"In the midst of the worst recession in a generation, this administration and this majority in Congress are prepared to pass a national energy tax," said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.).
The heart of the bill is a "cap" that would lower greenhouse gas emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 83 percent below those levels by 2050. It would enforce the cap by requiring many sources of such pollution, including power plants, factories and oil refineries, to amass buyable, sellable credits equal to their emissions.
The bill's co-sponsors, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Markey, rejected Obama's proposal to auction all emission allowances and use most of the revenues for tax cuts. Instead the measure would give away 85 percent of the annual emission allowances to consumers, coal-intensive manufacturers and utilities, as well as a variety of clean-energy interests, such as biofuel developers and superconductor makers. Most of those free allowances would be phased out in 10 to 20 years.
That set off a lobbying feeding frenzy, with 880 business and interest groups registered to lobby on the bill.
Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.) won concessions giving the Agriculture Department, instead of the Environmental Protection Agency, the authority to run a program that would give offsets to farmers who use tilling techniques that would keep carbon dioxide trapped in the soil.
For many environmental groups and liberal Democrats, these compromises made yesterday's victory somewhat sour. But many said they hoped the bill could be made stronger in the Senate.
"The bill still requires the first comprehensive, national limits on global warming pollution that get tighter every year," said Daniel Lashof, of the Natural Resources Defense Council. He added that the bill's Democratic advocates "are the strongest environmental champions one can hope to have. People aren't happy about all the compromises, but you have to give them the benefit of the doubt."
Yesterday's 5 1/2 -hour floor debate featured Democratic leaders who called the bill a historic move against global warming, and Republicans who said its costs would pitch the country into economic ruin. Eight Republicans supported the legislation, a small number but a better show of GOP support than Obama received on key items such as the $787 billion stimulus bill and a $106 billion war-funding bill.
There were moments of unrehearsed drama: Liberal Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.), who in the morning issued a release saying he opposed the bill because it was "too weak" and moved "billions from the public to polluters," took the floor in the afternoon to say he had changed his mind.
"I believe there is still some hope to make improvements once it gets out of the House," Doggett said. "Better to have a seat at the table to try to influence the change that is needed in this legislation."
Republicans also ridiculed Waxman's deal-making in pursuit of votes. "If you haven't made your deal yet, come on down to the floor," Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Tex.) said. He sarcastically complimented Waxman for cutting deals in public. "It's unprecedented, but at least it's transparent," he said.
In one such instance, Democratic leaders signaled support for a $50 million national hurricane center in the central Florida district of freshman Rep. Alan Grayson (D), who originally held out support for the legislation. Grayson voted for the measure.
And then came the fili-Boehner.
House tradition allows the speaker, the majority leader and the minority leader to ignore the usual time limits on floor speeches. So, at the end of four hours of debate, Boehner opened a binder containing the 300-page amendment.
"Don't you think the American people expect us to understand what's in this bill before we vote on it?" Boehner said, to cheers from Republicans.
He read numerous passages -- highlighting items such as credits for Fannie Mae-financed efficiency measures and plans for grants to study consumer behavior on energy use -- and offered critiques. Then, Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), who was presiding over the chamber on her final day before moving to a State Department post, said his time had expired.
Cap and Trade; a Solution to a Non-existent Problem with Devastating ConsequencesAn energy policy built on the lie that human CO2 is causing global warming is likely to fail. It is a bigger lie when CO2 is incorrectly called carbonBy Dr. Tim Ball
Monday, June 29, 2009
D.H. Lawrence said, ”Never trust the teller. Trust the tale.” But what happens if the tale is wrong? What happens if the teller knows or should know the tale is wrong? The key word is trust. A relationship must have trust. A society can only exist with trust. Political leaders can only succeed with trust. Trust cannot exist when an unnecessary end is reached by false means, which is happening with the US climate and energy policies.
An energy policy built on the lie that human CO2 is causing global warming is likely to fail. It is a bigger lie when CO2 is incorrectly called carbon. The policy is guaranteed to fail when proposed energy alternatives cannot fulfill needs and will cause economic slowdown, decreased competitiveness and further economic decay. On June 26, the US House of Representatives passed a Bill titled the American Clean Energy and Security Act by a scant 219 to 212 votes. The title is misleading. It appeals to patriotism, which Samuel Johnson said is the last refuge of a scoundrel. “Clean Energy” really means without producing CO2, which incorrectly assumes it is a pollutant. Security means eliminating imported energy, but the nation is less secure with a weakened economy guaranteed under provisions of the Bill. It is more commonly, but equally incorrectly, called the Carbon Cap and Trade Bill. Carbon is not CO2 but this is only one of the deceptions. Hopefully, enough Senators will understand and reject the Bill when they vote in the fall.
President Obama frantically pushed his energy policy as resistance developed. He wrapped it in promises of green jobs; profits from industry creating renewable clean energy; a stop to “bubble or bust” economic cycles; and all at no cost to the taxpayers because “polluters” pay the bill.
His June 23 press conference had the following statement. ”This legislation will spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet.”
The first two goals are possibly commendable but only necessary because of the last goal. How do you confront “carbon pollution”? What is it? At best it’s confusion about the science and at worst deliberately wrong. They’re the President’s words and his responsibility. He is aware of the impact of his words choosing them carefully when responding to questions. “Carbon pollution” is a result of politicizing climate. CO2 became carbon when “carbon credits” emerged from the Kyoto Accord. Its use expanded when evidence showed CO2 was not causing, nor ever caused, warming or climate change. It is incorrect.
A scientific definition of carbon is: the chemical element of atomic number 6, a nonmetal that has two main forms (diamond and graphite) and that also occurs in impure form in charcoal, soot, and coal.
The objective is to link CO2 with coal because it is seen as the devil itself. Witness Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) advocate James Hansen’s involvement with Greenpeace protesters on trial in the UK for damaging a coal burning plant.
Recently he was arrested protesting a coal processing plant in Southern West Virginia.
A scientific definition of carbon dioxide (CO2) is; a colorless, odorless gas produced by burning carbon and organic compounds and by respiration. So basically carbon is a solid and CO2 is a gas. They claim CO2 can slow heat escape from the atmosphere and an increase from human activity causes warming. It has not happened at any time and is not happening now. Carbon occurs as particles of soot in the atmosphere causing cooling by blocking sunlight. I expect them to blame soot for failure of their warming predictions.
On June 23 Obama said, ”This energy bill will create a set of incentives that will spur the development of new sources of energy, including wind, solar, and geothermal power”. These currently produce only 3.9 percent of US energy.
Wind and solar have severe limitations because they require 100 percent back up from conventional sources. They cannot replace a sufficient portion of current energy needs to supply even a dramatically reduced demand.
Obama’s said, “At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe.” This is false. He incorrectly substitutes carbon for CO2 and it is not a pollutant for air or water; it occurs naturally in both. It’s true industries producing CO2 will initially pay through Cap and Trade but they will pass the costs to the consumer. A critical question is who pays when all the “polluters” are out of business?
Coal currently produces 46.8 percent of US energy. Obama identified it as his main target during the campaign. “What I’ve said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is more—that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anybody else’s out there, so if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” If they go out of business as Obama expects, the economy will collapse as industries dependent on the energy disappear. Ironically alternative energies will also suffer because the 100 percent backup they require will not be available.
Obama said, ”The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century’s global economy. That’s what this legislation seeks to achieve. It’s a bill that will open the door to a better future for this nation and that’s why I urge members of Congress to come together and pass it.” A recent study of this “green jobs strategy” shows it doesn’t work. Paul Bachman, Director of Research at the Beacon Hill Institute, one of the report’s authors wrote, “Contrary to the claims made in these studies, we found that the green job initiatives reviewed in each actually causes greater harm than good to the American economy and will cause growth to slow.”
Others have tried clean energy and green jobs without success, especially in Europe. Philippe Herzog, a French economist and founder of Confrontations Europe said, “We have not found a balance yet between the definition of European objectives [on climate change] and the implications for jobs.” The UK have already found out it doesn’t work. A study by Capgemini, a global energy consultancy firm claims that, “electricity generation has fallen to its lowest level in ten years. The shortage has been caused by the increase in the level of demand for energy combined with a growing tendency to build wind turbines, at the expense of other, more reliable, electricity sources”.
Spain was touted as the model because it led all countries in money and commitment to electricity from renewable energy. Spanish economics professor Gabriel Calzada calculates that, ”each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation --sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency --of capital.”
A report from Britain about attempts to replace traditional energy with renewables notes, “Britain is already struggling to meet its ambitious target of supplying 10% of electricity needs from renewables by 2010 and 15% by 2015. Today’s figure is about 2%.” Once you realize the renewable strategy is not working how quickly can you recover?
The big question is whether the UK can act fast enough to tackle the looming crisis. Even if the government’s nuclear plans remain intact, it could be at least 10 years before the first new nuclear station is ready. A typical coal or gas-fired project could take between three and five years to construct.
Recovery potential is worse in the US because regulations extend construction time for nuclear plants and environmentalists will do everything to block coal plants. Meanwhile economies of these countries suffer even though they didn’t do anything as drastic as Obama proposes. Recovery can’t possibly occur within Obama’s first term, which may make it his last.
Will the Obama policy work any better? NO, because it is based on the same lie other countries used that CO2 is a problem and made worse by using deception of inaccurate scientific terminology. He then guarantees failure with policies that have already failed. So D. H. Lawrence was wrong in Obama’s case. You can’t trust the teller or the tale. There is no question Obama is clever but as Goethe said, “A clever man commits no minor blunders.” His climate and energy policies are blunders of devastating proportions.
E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warmingby Declan McCullagh
June 27, 2009
The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."
The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be an independent review process inside a federal agency--and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.
Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from higher levels."
E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.
"I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years exactly what I was to work on," said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. "And it was not to work on climate change." One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.
For its part, the EPA sent an e-mailed statement saying: "Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency, and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted." (The endangerment finding is the EPA's decision that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.)
Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.
After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature.
If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.
The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report, which lists the EPA's John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.
"The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it's supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way," said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C., that has been skeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global warming.
Kazman's group obtained the documents--both CEI and Carlin say he was not the source--and released the e-mails on Tuesday and the report on Friday. As a result of the disclosure, CEI has asked the EPA to reopen the comment period on the greenhouse gas regulatory proceeding, which ended on Tuesday.
The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."
That appears to conflict with an e-mail from McGartland in March, who said to Carlin: "I decided not to forward your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." He also wrote to Carlin: "Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc."
One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically is the unusual speed of the regulatory process. Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2--the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision.
"All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible, yesterday," Carlin said. "In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment." (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members who were asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.)
In the last few days, Republicans have begun to raise questions about the report and e-mail messages, but it was insufficient to derail the so-called cap and trade bill from being approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee, invoked Carlin's report in a floor speech during the debate on Friday. "The science is not there to back it up," Barton said. "An EPA report that has been suppressed...raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. If you don't have an endangerment finding, you don't need this bill. We don't need this bill. And for some reason, the EPA saw fit not to include that in its decision."
"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the senior Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said in a statement. "But the EPA is supposed to reach its findings based on evidence, not on political goals. The repression of this important study casts doubts on the EPA's finding, and frankly, on other analysis the EPA has conducted on climate issues."
The revelations could prove embarrassing to Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said in January: "I will ensure the EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." Similarly, President Barack Obama claimed that "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over... To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life."
"All this talk from the president and (EPA administrator) Lisa Jackson about integrity, transparency, and increased EPA protection for whistleblowers--you've got a bouquet of ironies here," said Kazman, the CEI attorney.
Is Global Warming Part of Earth's Natural Cycle: MIT Team Says "Yes" - A Galaxy InsightJune 25, 2009
A team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels -the first increase in ten years. What baffles the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions.
MIT's Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, state that this imbalance has resulted in several million metric tons of additional methane in the atmosphere. Methane is produced by wetlands, rice paddies, cattle, and the gas and coal industries, and is destroyed by reaction with the hydroxyl free radical (OH), often referred to as the atmosphere's "cleanser."
Methane accounts for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide. Its impact on global warming comes from the reflection of the sun's light back to the Earth. Methane is broken down in the atmosphere by the free radical hydroxyl (OH), a naturally occuring process. This atmospheric cleanser has been shown to adjust itself up and down periodically, and is believed to account for the lack of increases in methane levels in Earth's atmosphere over the past ten years despite notable simultaneous increases by man.
Prinn has said, "The next step will be to study [these changes] using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks. The key thing is to better determine the relative roles of increased methane emission versus [an increase] in the rate of removal. Apparently we have a mix of the two, but we want to know how much of each [is responsible for the overall increase]."
The primary concern now is that while the collected data in 2007 reflects a simultaneous world-wide increase in emissions, how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date?
One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a focus on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at "alarming rates." We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occurring for hundreds of thousands of years.
Posted by Casey Kazan. Photo Credit: Maria Stenzel, National Geographic.
EPA's Secret Document
Suppressed Climate Change Report

New Obama Climate Talking Points: Don't Say "Global Warming" or "Cap-and Trade"
Scientists Sign Petition Opposing Global Warming Alarmism
By Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Jun 2, 2008, 20:45 PST
As the Senate prepares for floor debate on global warming legislation, the list of scientist signatories to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s petition against global warming alarmism is growing by about 35 signatures every day, announced OISM’s Art Robinson.On May 19, 2008, OISM announced that over 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with PhDs, signed a petition that states, “… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate...”Signatories include such luminaries as theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, MIT’s atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen and first National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz. More than 40 signatories are members of the prestigious national Academy of Sciences.The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.You can view the petition at www.petitionproject.org