...«The IPCC is a UN body, and very few people seem to understand that, just as in the case of the EU, the UN is been driven forward by the Elites in government, banking and the media. The IPCC is clearly part of the NEW WORLD ORDER integrated system of totalitarian management that is being sold to the people of the world. They want to manage the arc of energy decline by getting us accept our rate in a New Feudalism that is being sold to us as our destiny»....
50 ΔΙΣ μέχρι στιγμής τσέπωσαν οι 1500 ειδικοί «επιστήμονες» του IPCC (OHE) και οι εταιρείες του Αλ Γκόρ γιά να στήσουν τον κλιματολογικό τρόμο με την υπερθέρμανση του πλανήτη σε συνάρτηση με το διοξείδιο του άνθρακα. Η συνέχεια αυτού του σεναρίου παγκοσμίως αλλά μαλλον και στην χώρα μας, θά είναι ένας φόρος που θα δούμε σε λίγο καιρό στούς λογαριασμούς της ΔΕΗ. Μετά την ΕΡΤ, Δημοτικά τέλη κλπ, έρχεται και ο ειδικός φόρος "ρύπανσης". Είτε θα ενσωματωθεί στην τιμή της κιλοβατώρας, είτε θα είναι ενα αυτόνομο ποσό. Ετσι κι αλλιώς, ήδη μας κυνηγάνε οι κομισάριοι της ΕΕ για το "αποτύπωμα ρύπων της ΔΕΗ" με τεράστια πρόστιμα. Κάποιοι φαίνεται σκέφθηκαν καί τρομο-επιστημονικούς τρόπους "κοινωνικά αποδεκτούς" γιά να κλείσουν τα τοξικά ελλείματα της ΕΚΤ, της FED, και της μεγάλης παγκόσμιας αρπαχτής. Δηλαδή ολοι να συνεισφέρουμε και να δίνουμε την ετήσια δόση μας...
Σχετικό ντοκυμανταίρ 85 λεπτών :
Ανοικτή επιστολή του John Coleman
Dear fellow Earth lovers,
Thank you for your dedication to protecting our environment. Clean air and clean water are essential to preserving life on planet Earth. Protecting all species and natural lands and forests are admirable priorities. Recycling and a green lifestyle are wonderful. Making the environment the most important thing in your life is a good thing, not a problem. I support you. But we do have a problem.
You have vigorously embraced the Man-Made Global Warming predictions of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore and you are using Mr. Gore's warnings of environmental calamity to campaign for elimination of fossil fuels. Your environmentally conscious friends in politics and in the media have united with you and we are experiencing a barrage of frightening news reports, documentaries, TV feature reports, movies, books, concerts and protest events to build support for your goals. With your support the war against fossil fuels has become a massive scare campaign that is even being taught as an undebatable truth in our schools leaving children with nightmares.
Here's what's wrong with that: the science is wrong. There is no significant man-made Global Warming underway and the science on which the computer projections of weather chaos are based is badly flawed.
I know many scientists are part of your movement and they have tried hard to give your uncontrollable climate change panic a scientific basis. Al Gore has a professional staff and millions of dollars and his status as former Vice President to support his campaign to sell the "big scare". And thousands of well-intentioned politicians and the media of the world have supported your movement. It must seem to you that there can be no doubt: fossil fuels are destroying the environment and will lead to uncontrollable global warming unless we act now. With all that powerful support for your anti-fossil fuel movement, and with the worthy goal of saving the planet from the disastrous consequences of runaway Global Warming, how can you fail?
Here's how: The science behind your global warming scare is bad. There has been no significant anthropogenic global warming in the past, none seems to be happening now and none is likely in the future. Dissenting scientists have produced convincing evidence that the cornerstone of your scientific argument, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide forcing a rapid, irreversible rise in temperature, is invalid. All of the various "signs of global warming" you have so widely publicized have been proven unrelated, considerably overstated or in many cases, just plain wrong. There are normal variations in climate that result mostly from the cycles of the Sun. For instance, as the Sun cycle has changed from active to passive in the last decade, the warm up of the 1990's has reversed itself. Arctic ice melting and polar bears dying, shrinkage of glaciers and the rise of ocean levels, increased intensity and number of hurricanes and intensified droughts have all been touted as signs of global warming. They are not. They are part of this natural variation in climate. The intensified hurricane claim never happened. Katrina was an isolated, random event. The droughts are part of the natural cycle and are reversing at this time. Glaciers are stabilizing. The Arctic ice cap is largely back to normal.
Here is what I am suggesting you do. Campaign for your environmental goals on the basis of their own merit. Let go off the global warming frenzy before it leaves you discredited and embarrassed. Stop screaming, "The sky is falling." It is not.
Do your good work. Devote your lives to our environment. In many ways you will succeed. We are all grateful for your love of the planet. But, don't use scare tactics.
Most of all I urge you not to become extremists. And, may I encourage you to live your lives in a loving way, love your fellow human beings and our wonderful advanced standard of living and way of life as much as you love the Earth.
My very best regards,
John Coleman
Heartland Institute
ΠΕΡΙΣΣΟΤΕΡΕΣ ΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΙΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΣΧΕΤΙΚΕΣ ΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΕΙΣ:
Obama’s Science Advisor Publicly Plan Chemtrails To Geoengineer Earth
Posted On April 9 2009 by Steve Watson
Radical terraforming programs come from elite Internationalists
The Obama administration’s announcement that it is to consider radical planetary “geo-engineering”, such as “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays”, exactly mirrors recent publications penned by the elite Council On Foreign Relations.
Yesterday the Associated Press reported that the Obama administration has held discussions regarding the possibility of “geo-engineering” the earth’s climate to counter global warming.
The AP report states that Obama’s science advisor John Holdren is pushing for radical terra forming programs to be explored such as creating an “artificial volcano”. Despite Holdren’s admission that such measures could have “grave side effects,” he added that, “we might get desperate enough to want to use it.”
Such ideas exactly mirror those put forth by the CFR in previous years.
In briefing notes published in May 2008 from the CFR’s Geoengineering: Workshop on Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering, the elite internationalist group lays out the exact same radical ideas now being touted by the Obama administration.
The following excerpts are taken from the document:
Geoengineering Strategies
Among all geoengineering schemes, those currently considered most feasible involve increasing the planetary albedo, that is, reflecting more sunlight back into space before it can be absorbed. There are a number of different methods that could be used to increase the planet’s reflectivity:
1. Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere (the stratosphere which is located between 15 and 50 kilometers above the Earth’s surface).
2. Add more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere (the troposphere)
3. Place various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.
4. Change large portions of the planet’s land cover from things that are dark (absorbing) such as trees to things that are light (reflecting) such as open snowcover or grasses.
[…]
Stratospheric Aerosols that might be engineered to migrate to particular regions (e.g. over the arctic) or to rise above the stratospher (so as not to interfere in stratospheric chemistry).
Adding more of the right kind of fine particles to the stratosphere can increase the amount of sunlight that is reflected back into space.
Applied to geoengineering, various technologies could be used to loft particles into the stratosphere, such as naval guns, rockets, hot air balloons or blimps, or a fleet of highflying aircraft. Potential types of particles for injection include sulfur dioxide, aluminum oxide dust or even designer self-levitating aerosols.The CFR’s geoengineering research program is directed by David G. Victor a Professor at Stanford Law School and an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Also involved are M. Granger Morgan, head of Carnegie Mellon University’s Department of Engineering, Jay Apt, Professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, and John Steinbruner, Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland.
In an article entitled The Geoengineering Option: A Last Resort Against Global Warming? published in this month’s Foreign Affairs, the CFR’s monthly magazine, the directors once again lay out their ideas for planetary terraforming, calling for a worldwide 60-80 percent cut in carbon emissions.
Obama’s push toward a so called “cap and trade” carbon taxation program is also a direct descendant of Victor et al’s CFR policy formation.
A CFR geo-engineering meeting summary document from 1999 (PDF pages 12,13,14) also categorically states that the ultimate goal under “A technology strategy for global warming” is the implementation of a global Carbon Tax.
The memo also pedantically explains how the perceived fear of global warming can be used to sell to Americans what is essentially a tax on air:
“While taxing tea pales in comparison to taxing air as a perceived government affront, the clear benefits of a taxation policy to combat global warming might convince even the descendents of our tax-resistant Founding Fathers.”
The tentative announcement by the Obama administration of the existence of geoengineering research programs is a first step toward introducing the idea to the wider public.However, as we highlighted in our master article yesterday, geo-engineering is undoubtedly already being conducted by government-affiliated universities, government agencies, and on a mass scale through chemtrail spraying.
Such programs merely scratch the surface of what is likely to be a gargantuan and overarching black-budget funded project to terraform the planet, with little or no care for the unknown environmental consequences this could engender.
Further Research: Here (http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=0f7612d53ddbfa39ed24a2875c7fa58e22e484a82be6144e5be6ba49b5870170 )is an extremely valuable file folder containing 8 PDFs, all published by the CFR, and all concerning their Geo-Engineering Program.
Get Ready for Carbon Taxes -Obama’s Energy SecretaryPosted by gibb February 2009, by Kurt Nimmo
Buried in a New York Times article replete with the pontification of Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu we find what the globalists have in mind for us — carbon taxes so crippling they will drive more jobs out of the country and send energy costs through the stratosphere.
“Dr. Chu said reaching agreement on legislation to combat climate change would be difficult in the current recession because any scheme to regulate greenhouse gas emissions would probably cause energy prices to rise and drive manufacturing jobs to countries where energy is cheaper,” reports the New York Times. “The concern about cap-and-trade in today’s economic climate,” Dr. Chu said, “is that a lot of money might flow to developing countries in a way that might not be completely politically sellable.”
“He said that while President Obama and Congressional Democratic leaders had endorsed a so-called cap-and-trade system to control global warming pollutants, there were alternatives that could emerge, including a tax on carbon emissions or a modified version of cap-and-trade.”
Agence France-Presse didn’t dance around the issue like the New York Times. “During the US presidential campaign, the notion was kept largely on the back burner as candidates were reluctant to promote the idea of costlier energy at a time when gasoline prices were soaring.” Now that Obama is in office, Chu believes “alternatives could emerge, including a tax on carbon emissions.”
In the New York Times article, Chu says “Big Science” and “Nobel-level breakthroughs,” along with taxing the plebs until they become third world serfs will save the planet from the menace of global warming and climate change. Dr. Chu, a physicist, didn’t tell the other half of the story — an increasing number of scientists believe the sun is a major driving force behind global warming, not carbon emissions.
“Ice core samples show that CO2 levels (which are blamed by many to be the initiating force behind a rise in global temperature) rise 800 years after an initial rise in temperature,” writes Daniel Taylor. “Other data gathered regarding solar activity show a clear connection between fluctuations in the sun’s activity and temperature variations on earth. If the sun is in fact the culprit for changes in the earth’s temperature, world taxes, global government and other solutions we are being given are not cutting to the root cause of climate change.”In 1990, writes Jim Tucker, the Bilderbergers adopted climate change as the preferred model to impose global government and reintroduce serfdom. “Like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group discovered the issue of environmental deterioration. Bilderbergers embraced a report from the Trilateral Commission that year on the environment, because the potential profit in cleaning up the mess would be immense.”
The following year, the Club of Rome think tank published The First Global Revolution, a book suggesting a draconian neo-Malthusianism “limit to growth” approach will solve the world’s problems, in fact a problem the global elite has with humanity. “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill,” the book states. “All these dangers are caused by human intervention,” and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”The Club of Rome’s members, including Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Mikhail Gorbachev, believe humanity requires “a common motivation, namely a common adversary” in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or… one invented for the purpose.” In the process of struggling against this implacable enemy, democracy “will be made to seem responsible for the lagging economy, the scarcity and uncertainties. The very concept of democracy could then be brought into question and allow for the seizure of power.”Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, expanded on this topic in his article, State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era. According to Haass, a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming and terrorism, both invented as the Club of Rome suggested. “Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change,” writes Haass. “The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.”
In addition to pushing the junk science of climate change, our rulers are systematically taking down the global economy in order to impose what Haass describes as “an international system of either world government or anarchy.”
Prior to the election, Obama called for drastically reducing carbon emissions. “President elect Barack Obama used his speech at a Los Angeles summit last night to reinvigorate a push for the revival of a frightening proposal to slash carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status,” Paul Joseph Watson wrote for Prison Planet on November 19, 2008. “Obama’s agenda to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent is a huge leap towards the ultimate goal, expressed by the Carnegie Institute earlier this year and afforded sober credibility by the corporate media - a complete reduction down to zero carbon emissions.”
“Zero carbon emissions? That would lead to the near complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man’s return to the stone age,” Watson incredulously notes.
It may indeed be a “tough sell to get a law passed in the United States that could lead to higher energy prices,” as Energy Secretary Steven Chu suggests.
Congress under the Democrats, however, was able to pass the largest tax and spend bill in U.S. history with relatively little opposition. In the months ahead, with the help of the corporate media, they will crank up the propaganda about climate change and eventually impose punitive carbon taxes on the American people, a scheme that may eventually lead to the near complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man’s return to the stone age.
The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam
Posted January 2009
By Weather Channel Founder John Coleman
The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.
How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?
The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.
Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.
These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.
But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.
The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.
Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.
Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.
Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.
He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, “It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!” The student described him as “a wonderful, visionary professor” who was “one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming,” That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.
So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.
What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”. The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.
But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, “My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.” He added, “…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.”
And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.
Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, “I think so, but I do not know it for certain”. I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.
Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.
Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.
So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.
We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.
And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.
Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a highjacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.
Global Warming Climate: Change You Can’t Believe In
Posted by gibb On January 2009
By Marc Sheppard
American Thinker - Barack Obama campaigned for the White House on a promise he’d deliver “change you can believe in.” And the popular totals suggest that 52% of voters believed indeed. But according to a recent Rasmussen Poll, there’s one change that only 41% of Americans can believe in - manmade climate change. That’s down from 47% just nine months ago, and before moving the country down an unpopular green-paved road to disaster, the “unity” promising freshman president would be well advised to understand why.
For starters, the rapidly expanding number of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) dissenting international scientists, many rising from within the alarmists’ own ranks, has thoroughly shredded the misleading fallacy of “consensus.” And a full decade sans warming and concluding with pronounced cooling despite ever-rising atmospheric CO2 levels has left Green House Gas (GHG) force-feeders with frosty egg on their faces. Remember the sea ice that doomsters warned would soon be gone? It’s now at the very same level it was in 1979. And the sea level rise of 3.1 mm/year the IPCC declared took place between 1993 and 2003 — purportedly as sea ice melted — decreased by 20% to 2.5 mm/year in the five years that followed. That historically natural, centuries-long gradual creep falls a tad short of portending Al Gore’s 20 foot tall civilization changing soaker.
We can’t even believe in “official” measurements, as data sets relied upon to track global temperatures have again been shown to be contaminated and otherwise compromised in an effort to heighten public hysteria. Ironically, to a populace once confused by the mass media’s heat hyping, clarity came not from scientific debate, nor CO2 concentration, nor bad data nor even ice and sea levels — but rather from cold reality.
Record low temperatures and snowfall have caused misery everywhere from Slovenia (-49°C) to Sioux City (-20°F), and that’s real change real people can believe in. Is it any wonder then that warnings of a coming ice age and forecasts of immediate sustained climatic cooling suddenly ring more plausible than those of a scorched and marginally inhabitable Roger Cormanesque planet laughably besieged by giant man-eating snakes, bubonic plague and even ravenous cannibals? Or that Thursday’s Pew Research Center poll ranked global warming dead last in a list of 20 issues Americans want the new administration to focus on? Dead last!Tough break for Liberal policy makers — what with recent elections and political appointments breathing new hope into their lifelong dreams of commerce and lifestyle-dictating legislation and regulation, only to be dashed by the unpredictability of the very force they averred to predict.
So we’re seeing the offense from the now defense-playing alarmists accelerate and intensify, for fear that as current cooling trends continue, the percentage of those blindly believing will plunge precipitously. Their bluff called, they are, in effect, “all-in” and must now play the hand they have dealt themselves — and the world — or admit to their chicanery. That’s why newly installed House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) didn’t even wait for Inauguration Day to announce that “Comprehensive global warming legislation will be sent to the House floor by Memorial Day.”With the clock running down, it’s all hysterical hands on deck.Embattled Warmists Circle Their Wagons while Democrats in both Houses race to get their previously tabled stealth Carbon taxation plan onto President Obama’s desk, fellow Big Green Scare Machine cogs strive to restore popular “belief.”
On a very cold January 15th, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)’s Gavin Schmidt calmly explained to ABC News that:
“It’s always a little bit difficult to talk about global warming when you’re gonna have the coldest day of the year. But you have to realize that weather isn’t abolished just because there’s a long-term trend in the climate.”
Sounds almost reasonable — particularly given the source. But marvel not, for around that same time last week, his colleague (and our antihero) James Hansen made the hysterical declaration that “President Obama’s administration is the last chance to avoid flooded cities, species extinction and climate catastrophe.”
Now that’s the GISS we’ve come to know and instinctively distrust. Sure, a prolonged record global freeze is by no means evidence of cooling — but every rainfall, hurricane, drought, tsunami and heat-wave are irrefutable proof of manmade warming. This comes from the same agency that, in 2007, predicted “a record global temperature” to be expected “within the next 2-3 years.” Nice call — the following year turned out to be the coldest in a decade. But Hansen’s boys are nothing if not belligerent. Despite last year’s freeze, they are sticking to their overheated guns and are now predicting that “a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years.” That sure satisfies any concerns whether the 400 million dollars plus the House Democrats’ economic stimulus plan would pump into NASA climate change research programs will be money well spent.Simultaneously — the liberal blogosphere flew into panicked overdrive to restoke their retreating inferno.
On the same day Schmidt was dispatched as damage control, a Huffpo piece complained that a Google blog search for 2008 items using the terms “global warming” + lie, “global warming” + hoax, “global warming” + alarmists and “global warming” + skeptic returns twice the results as those for 2007. The author faulted the results of the Rasmussen Poll on this: “the internet is now a larger source of news for people than newspapers.” So who was this criticizing the availability of uncensored on-line information? Why, none other than Kevin Grandia, Managing Editor of alarmist propaganda site DeSmogBlog.
Grandia claims that “the internet is exploding” with information that “the majority of the mainstream media is unwilling to cover.” And truer words he’s seldom spoken.
But then he describes that thankfully obtainable insight as “the nonsensical junk science of the right-wing think tanks and their cadre of scientists for hire.” And as do all cooling deniers, he cites as skeptic-damning authority the debunked agenda-driven reports from the “top climate scientists from around the world ” of the 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that “global warming is ‘very likely’ — or 90 per cent certain–caused by humans burning fossil fuels.”
This is the same U.N. globaloney espoused by Media Matters for America in its recent attacks on Lou Dobbs, beginning on December 18th when Heartland Institute senior fellow and science director Jay Lehr told the CNN anchor that “‘[t]he last 10 years have been quite cool’ and that ‘the sun’ — rather than humans — is responsible for recent climate change.” An enraged MM insisted that the IPCC 2007 Synthesis Report “specifically rebuts the suggestion that the sun, rather than humans, is responsible for climate change.”
In the weeks that followed, MM quoted the same report as gospel twice more. Once when rare bird Hollywood-conservative Douglas Urbanski rightly proclaimed that “there is no evidence that there is man-made climate change occurring.” And again when Dobbs “questioned the impact of humans on global warming and suggested that solar activity may be far more responsible for global warming” during his January 5th show.
And yet, this IPCC report, much-hyped-and-hallowed by alarmists and media-drones alike, represents the combined work of only 52 carefully cherry-picked UN scientists. But the 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report containing the IPCC-countering findings of more than 12 times that number (over 650 dissenting — including many current and former UN IPCC — scientists) is either gratuitously ridiculed or all but ignored by these same agents. And last year’s Manhattan Declaration was similarly impressive in its signatories, and similarly mistreated by alarmists and their hand-puppets throughout the green-entranced MSM.
Grandia refers to a “cadre of scientists for hire” and Al Gore and Gorebots the likes of IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri refer to dissenting experts as flat-Earthers and variants of big-oil whores and label their views “outside the scientific consensus.”
When in fact, even were consensus a foundation of science, there exists infinitely more that Al Gore, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Joe Romm, Kevin Grandia et al are snake-oil salesmen than of any anthropogenic impact on climate. And recent claims of a vaguely worded online survey with a 30% response rate fromunnamed “scientists” being touted by the alarmists as proof otherwise change nothing.
So 59% of Americans aren’t buying it; climate experts across the globe aren’t behind it; yet the alarmists continue to sell it and Democratic politicians remain steady customers.All The President’s Men (and Women) of Science
Indeed, whether born of ignorance, denial, or just political corner-painting, our new president continues to position fossil-fuel induced warming high on the list of immediate challenges he’ll tackle, even when speaking in single-digit wind-chill locales, as he did last Saturday in Philadelphia. And that was just days after new E.P.A. chief Lisa Jackson avowed that “If confirmed, I will serve with science as my guide,” and the very day after Interior secretary Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) promised to “put science first” in department decision-making.
Outstanding.
Jackson — who testified at her confirmation hearing that “curbing global warming” would be an E.P.A. priority — has yet to disclose whether she’d move to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act, an extremely dangerous possibility nonetheless provided in 2007 by the wrongly decided Supreme Court decision of Massachusetts v. EPA. But as a committed GHG hypochondriac and avid supporter of cap-and-trade — serving “as Vice President of the Executive Board of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative,” which has already launched the nation’s first carbon trading system, her trump card — should legislation fail — is a no-brainer. And such radical regulation would empower unelected bureaucrats to impose massive behavior-modifying fines upon a broad range of residential and commercial “polluters.”
Meanwhile, Salazar remains vague about further acting upon the remarkably bad decision to include global warming as an Endangered Species Act concern, stating that “it is something that we will take a look at.” But look out — immediately upon taking office on Tuesday, Obama halted progress on a Bush-installed revision that would wisely “block the law from being used to fight global warming.” As we’ve pointed out in the past, the convergence of CO2 declared a greenhouse “pollutant” and animals listed as endangered by “climate change” creates a virtually unlimited potential for federal control over all manners of commerce and day-to-day existence.
Science first? My ice cold butt!
And speaking of furthering government control, Carol M. Browner — Obama’s choice for the new inanely-named position of “global warming czar” — is a dyed-in-the-wool socialist. She’s one of 14 leaders of Socialist International’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which, according to the Washington Times, “calls for ‘global governance’ and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.” For more on the eco-Marxism scam, see Noel Sheppard’s NASA’s Hansen to Obama: Use Global Warming to Redistribute Wealth and my own The Climate Alarmist Manifesto.
Then there’s new energy secretary Steven Chu, another cap-and-trade champion, who declared at his confirmation hearing:
“Climate change is a growing and pressing problem. It is now clear that if we continue on our current path, we run the risk of dramatic disruptive changes to our climate in the lifetimes of our children and our grandchildren.”
And let’s not forget Obama’s director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Boston Globe recently reminded us of John Holdren’s own “contempt for researchers who are unconvinced that human activity is responsible for global warming, or that global warming is an onrushing disaster,” calling their ideas which “infest” public discourse “dangerous,” and that “paying any attention to their views is ‘a menace.’” Holdren also “contributed to a published assault on Bjorn Lomborg’s notable 2001 book ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’- an attack the Economist described as ‘strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance.’”
Card-carrying carbochondriacs — the lot: Unwavering advocates of a scheme proven both wholly ineffectual in GHG abatement and clearly antithetical to our essential economic recovery by its international precursors. And Americans are waking up to the fact that the green power they and those driving them desire derives not from infeasible wind, solar or geothermal sources, but rather from economic command and control.
It’s obvious that were they pure of motive, green ideologues could stick to tangibles like clean water and air, and breaking OPEC’s strategically-dangerous strangle-hold on our energy supply; even limited intangibles like peak-oil and ambiguous “green jobs” — and people could still believe. So why sully the believable with the unbelievable, particularly when the goals are supposedly identical?
And by the way, Obama’s inaugural pledge to “restore science to its rightful place” wasn’t alone in its incongruity on the subject. He also promised that the era of “protecting narrow interests” is over, reinforcing his campaign pledge that his administration “would not be beholden to special interests.” But in fact, the green lobby represents perhaps the broadest and most dangerous of all influence peddlers — those who literally want to micromanage not only the air we breathe and the food we eat, but also our homes, our businesses, our pastimes and even our vacation spots - not to mention what, how often and how far we drive or fly in shuttling between them.
Current polls affirm that despite a protracted and intense campaign of misinformation and dissent-gagging, Americans now want the debate Al Gore once declared over to actually begin. And they want it free of the mind-policing tactics advocated by Obama’s science director, and long before any action is taken by climate zealots in either his cabinet or Congress.
Later in Tuesday’s speech, the president swore to “restore the vital trust between people and their government.” That was right before he promised the freezing crowd he’d “roll back the specter of a warming planet.”
Of course — until he and his appointees take stock of the facts regarding the latter, there’s little hope of success in the former.
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Posted January 2009
Editors Note: Even though global warming is completely debunked, fascist government institutions are steaming full speed ahead into putting new taxes on life. An outright scam, and an obvious front to depopulate and deindustrialize.
NASA’s Hansen to Obama: Use Global Warming to Redistribute Wealth
James Hansen wants to redistribute your wealth.
Editors Note: This is the new contrived worldwide direct external threat Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obamas spiritual adviser, says is needed to unite humanity together in a world government. A world government free of things like basic human rights that our constitution represents. The past discredited, contrived external threat of Al Qaeda will no longer be used.
By Noel Sheppard
Climate realists around the world have contended for years that the real goal of alarmists such as Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his followers is to use the fear of man-made global warming to redistribute wealth.
On Monday, one of Gore’s leading scientific resources, Goddard Institute for Space Studies chief James Hansen, sent a letter to Barack and Michelle Obama specifically urging the president-elect to enact a tax on carbon emissions that would take money from higher-income Americans and distribute the proceeds to the less fortunate.
The eco-socialism cat was let out of the bag on page five of a PDF Hansen published at Columbia University’s website on December 29 (Emphasis done by NewsBusters)
29 December 2008
Michelle and Barack Obama
Chicago and Washington, D.C.
United States of America
Dear Michelle and Barack,
We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born.
Barack has spoken of ‘a planet in peril’ and noted that actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.
We apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to these ‘details’ could make all the difference in what surely will be the most important matter of our times. [...]
(2) Rising price on carbon emissions via a “carbon tax and 100% dividend”.
A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency.
A rising carbon price is essential to “decarbonize” the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.
The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.
The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. The dividend puts money in the pockets of consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public a means to purchase the products.
A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world.
The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend.
“Cap and trade” generates special interests, lobbyists, and trading schemes, yielding non productive millionaires, all at public expense. The public is fed up with such business. Tax with 100% dividend, in contrast, would spur our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged, the climate, and our national security. [...]
James and Anniek Hansen
Pennsylvania
United States of America
We should all be pleased with Hansen’s honesty, and sincerely pray American media outlets will publish his letter so the citizenry can finally understand what the anthropogenic global warming myth is all about.
Keep your fingers crossed.
Source: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/01/nasas-hansen-obama-use-global-warming-redistribute-wealth
"fresh" ideas by the UN IPCC at http://en.cop15.dk/blogs/view+blog?blogid=1275
