Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline In How Science Was Bastardized - The $50 Billion New Socialist Media‏ - Big Brother's Money Grab



Copenhagen: A laughing matter
Exclusive: Joel Barbee illustrates reaction to comical climate summit

Copenhagen: A laughing matter

Posted: December 07, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 


Understanding Climategate's hidden decline
Marc Sheppard: 'Trillions of dollars and Americans' personal liberties are at stake'
--American Thinker
December 06, 2009


Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline

By Marc Sheppard

Close followers of the Climategate controversy know that much of the mêlée surrounds an e-mail in which Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones wrote about using “Mike’s Nature Trick” (MNT) to “hide the decline.” And yet, seventeen days and thousands of almost exclusively on-line op-eds into this scandal, it still seems that very few understand exactly which “decline” was being hidden, what “trick” was used to do so, and why Jones’s words have become the slogan for the greatest scientific fraud in history.


As the mainstream media move from abject denial to dismissive whitewashing, CRU co-conspirators move to Copenhagen for tomorrow’s U.N. climate meeting, intent on changing the world as we know it based primarily on their now-exposed trickery. Add yesterday’s announcement of a U.N. investigation into the matter, which will doubtless be no less corrupt than those being investigated, and public awareness of how and why that trick was performed is now more vital than ever.


So please allow me to explain in what I hope are easily digestible terms.


First and foremost -- contrary to what you’ve likely read elsewhere in the blogosphere or heard from the few policymakers and pundits actually addressing the issue, it was not the temperature decline the planet has been experiencing since 1998 that Jones and friends conspired to hide. Certainly, the simple fact that the e-mail was sent in November of 1999 should allay any such confusion.


In fact, the decline Jones so urgently sought to hide was not one of measured temperatures at all, but rather figures infinitely more important to climate alarmists -- those determined by proxy reconstructions. As this scandal has attracted new readers to the subject, I ask climate-savvy readers to indulge me while I briefly explain climate proxies, as they are an essential ingredient of this contemptible conspiracy.


Truth be told, even reasonably reliable instrumental readings are a relatively modern convenience, limiting CRU’s global measured temperature database to a start date somewhere in the mid-19th century. That’s why global temperature charts based on actual readings typically use a base year of 1850, or somewhere thereabout.   

And yet, most historical temperature charts, including the one Al Gore preached before in An Inconvenient Truth, go way back to 1000 AD. That’s where proxies come in.


While historical documents (e.g., ship’s logs, diaries, court and church records, tax rolls, and even classic literature) certainly provide a glimpse into past temperature trends, such information is far too limited and generalized to be of any statistical value. So climate scientists have devised means to measure variations in such ubiquitous materials as lake sediments, boreholes, ice cores, and tree rings to evaluate past temperature trends.


They then employ complex computer programs to combine such “proxy” data sampled throughout a region and plot that area’s annual relative changes in temperature hundreds or even thousands of years prior. By then combining the data sets, they believe they can accurately reproduce hemispheric and global temperature trends of the previous millennia.


And while reconstructions -- as past temperature interpretations from proxy data are called -- can differ greatly from one source to another, those generated by the CRU have often been accepted as the de facto temperatures of the past.


This is largely because the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proclaims them to be.


Warmist Public Enemy Number One: The Medieval Warming Period

It’s important to understand that early analyses, and even many contemporary studies, of these “proxies” clearly demonstrate that three radical temperature shifts occurred within the past millennium. Indeed, the years 900-1300 AD were labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), as global temperatures rose precipitously from the bitter cold of the previous Dark Ages to levels several degrees warmer than today. The Little Ice Age, a sudden period of cooling, then followed and lasted until the year 1850. And then began the modern warming period, which is by no means unique and appears to have ended with the millennium itself.  


Originally, even the IPCC accepted that pre-20th-century analysis. In fact, the 1990 First Assessment Report used this schematic IPCC 1990 Figure 7c (courtesy of Climate Audit) to represent last millennium’s dramatic temperature swings. 



But this image of a fluid climate system subject to abrupt and natural up-and-downturns made "unprecedented" 20th-century warming about as marketable as Florida swampland. And opportunists who depended on the aberrance of post-industrial revolution warming in order to condemn and control mankind’s CO2 emissions soon recognized that perhaps the LIA, and most certainly the MWP, simply had to go.

And as many of these hucksters were closely connected to the IPCC -- both sender and recipient names on those illuminating CRU emails include many of its editors, lead authors, and contributors -- that task was far less daunting than one might imagine. 


Proxies, Tricks, and Hockey Sticks

The first step was taken in the 1995 Second Assessment Report, when the above Figure 7c was replaced with a 1993 reconstruction from R.S. Bradley and Phil Jones himself that used 1400 AD as its base -- effectively wiping the MWP off the radar screen.


But it wasn’t until the 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) that the MWP simply vanished. This multi-proxy reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies appeared in chapter 2, page 134 of the Working Group 1 (WG1) report [PDF].  

IPCC 2001 WG1 Fig 2.20


Of course, the first thing you’ll notice is that both the MWP and LIA have indeed disappeared. In fact, temperatures appear to trend downward throughout the millennium until a sharp jump upward last century. But if you look closer, you’ll also notice that the “reconstructed” series terminates in 1980. What forms the dramatic blade to the hockey stick shape (yes, this is indeed the famous “Hockey-Stick” graph) is instead the distal segment of the 1902-to-1999 instrumental data series. 


Mann has recently claimed that the available proxy data ended in 1980, but even his co-conspirators at RealClimate admit that’s nonsense. The truth is that the proxy data was scrapped because unlike those measured, reconstructed temperatures showed a marked decline after 1980. And as the chart plotted temperature anomalies against what the plotters selected as the “normal” period and temperatures of 1961 to 1990, the reconstruction would have been quite unremarkable otherwise. So at the 1980 mark, the actual post-1980 measurements were attached to the truncated proxy series to create the illusion that they were one.


The figure below, found on the same page of the WG1 report, reveals this trick more clearly. This chart plots the original four reconstructions used: two from Mann et al, one from Jones et al, and one from Briffa et al. Notice how all but the first series continue to trend downward around 1960 while instrumental readings begin to trend upward? And even that series ends abruptly in 1980.   


IPCC 2001 WG1 Fig 2.21


So not only did conspirators cherry-pick the one series of the four that approximated measured temperatures the longest, they also terminated that series at the point that it too, began to trend down. They then joined it to the actual 1980-1999 temperatures to “hide the decline” in the final product, as that decline created an inexplicable divergence between the reconstructed and measured temperatures..the existence of which challenges the entire series dating back to 1000 AD.

Remember, all the temperatures prior to 1850 were estimated by computer algorithms, and no actual readings exist to prove or disprove those figures. So a relatively short window of opportunity exists to test the programs against observations. Had 20th-century measured temperatures continued to align with those recreated as smoothly after 1960 as they did previously, then the programmers could declare their code and hence their millennial temperatures sound. But the divergence, if allowed to stand, instead reveals serious design flaws in the proxy reconstructions...which suggests that just as the decline was dealt with through trickery, so was the MWP.


And it seems that each time the trick was used, its involvement would be more deeply concealed. 


Every multi-volume IPCC Assessment has been accompanied by a relatively brief and highly-politicized Summary for Policymakers (SPM). This synopsis invariably commands the bulk of the media and political attention. Here’s the version of the graph depicted prominently on page 3 of the 2001 TAR SPM [PDF], the only version of the report most policymakers and reporters would ever actually see. Notice how they further obscured their chicanery by omitting the series-defining legend and the “1988 instrumental value” declaration:

IPCC 2001 SPM Fig 1b


And despite the fact that the only confirmable segment of the series failed that very test, which should have declared the entire series null and void, the chart’s caption informed policymakers that the rate and duration of warming of the 20th century has been much greater than in any of the previous nine centuries.  Similarly, it is likely that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium.


And it’s this highly fraudulent version that has become the poster child of the equally fraudulent Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) movement.


All this is thanks in large part to the trick that hides the decline.


Trick or Cheat

Now we'll take a closer look at exactly what Jones meant when he wrote that he had “just completed Mike’s Nature Trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Why did Jones refer to the ruse as “Mike’s Nature Trick”? 

As die-hard Hockey Team opponents and fans alike already know, the original 600-year version of the now infamous “Hockey-Stick” graph was dubbed MBH98 because it first appeared in the Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes paper “Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries” [PDF], originally published in the science journal Nature in 1998. And “Mike’s Nature Trick” received its dubious designation among CRU insiders for the very same reason.


As to the rest of the sentence, it seems Jones was working on a cover chart for a forthcoming World Meteorological Organization report [PDF], “WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1990,” when he wrote the e-mail. As the graph would incorporate one reconstruction of his own plus one each from Michael Mann and Keith Briffa, Jones was informing them that he had used the trick on Mann’s series at the same 1980 cutoff as MBH98, but found it necessary to use 1960 as the cutoff on the Briffa series.

And what I uncovered in the source code told why. While Mann used multiple proxy sources, Briffa’s reconstructions were based solely on a property of annual tree ring growth known as maximum latewood density (MXD). And the MXD-only-driven plots began to diverge from actual temperatures as early as 1960. In fact, while many of CRU’s programs are designed to exclude all data after 1960 for later manual splicing with instrumental data, others employ “fudge factors” to force the generated plot to more closely adhere to measured temperatures as far back as 1930.


And as you’ll soon see, Jones’s admitted use of MNT took it to an entirely new level of fraud.


Here’s the original reconstruction, with the three proxy and measured temperature (black) series intact:



Notice how Briffa’s series (green) begins to trend sharply downward around the mid-20th century. Jones’s series (red) soon follows, but less sharply, and then it begins to trend higher. Mann’s (blue) appears to flatten out around the same year that Jones’s begins to fall. Meanwhile, all three have broken with the measured rising temperatures of the late 20th century.


Now take a look at the chart actually published by the WMO, with all three proxy series having been surreptitiously subjected to MNT:



Since the release of CRU’s FOI2009, alarmists have continued their claim that there’s nothing deceptive about the “trick” and that it has been openly discussed in scientific journals like Nature since 1998.

But I defy anyone to compare the above chart -- the one to which Jones wrote he had applied MNT -- to the unadulterated version above it and tell me there’s been no deception committed. At least with MBH98, a sharp eye might recognize the ruse. Here, there is no indication given whatsoever that the graph represents an amalgam of proxy and measured temperatures. This, my friends, is fraud.

And I hope that those investigating the fraud will carefully consider this explanation of the WMO cheating given last week by Jones:


One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This is well known and is called the ‘decline’ or ‘divergence’. The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure. It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series up to 1960 in the WMO Statement. [My emphasis.]


And they’ll immediately recognize the dishonest denial they’re dealing with when they read the WMO Statement figure from the inside cover Jones referred to:


Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records.  The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from teh 1961-1990 normal.  Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available at http://www.pages.unibe.ch) and the National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov).


Even if MNT had been explained as Jones claimed -- which it hadn’t -- just how was the observer expected to differentiate the reconstructed from the actual data?  And good luck finding that newsletter. 


Spin it any way you want -- Mike’s Nature Trick is Phil’s WMO cheat. 


More Tricks of the Charade

While suddenly the most famous, Mike’s is not the only trick in CRU’s bag. 


Many of the programs I reviewed contained routines to exclude proxy data that demonstrated poor correlations with local temperature, which of course explains why CRU’s 19th- through mid-20th-century proxy temperatures appeared to be observationally accurate. Others “estimated” values for missing data.


And then there’s the Yamal matter -- also a popular subject of the CRU e-mails.


In an October 5th e-mail to climatologist Tom Wigley, Jones took issue with a piece I had written that day exposing the lies in CRU-based U.N. climate reports, which included a section on Keith Briffa’s mistreatment of Polar Ural data in order to exaggerate 20th-century warming. That e-mail prompted the reply from Wigley -- now familiar to AT readers -- in which he admitted it was “distressing to read that American Stinker item” -- before offering to help Briffa, who “does seem to have got himself into a mess,” write an “explanation” for his deceitful cherry-picking of Yamal peninsula data.


Indeed, Keith’s Yamal Trick also “fudged” proxy reconstructions, not by overwriting them with instrumental data à la Mike, but rather by underhandedly stacking the actual data set with trees handpicked to assure his predetermined outcome. Yet both methods intentionally corrupted reconstruction results for the same devious purpose -- to skew late-20th-century temperatures higher in order to artificially create the dreaded hockey-stick effect. 


Now, you might be wondering why all this fuss is being made over late-20th-century temperatures when even we realists accept that they did rise until 1998. Hopefully, you now understand why the divergence between proxy and measured temperatures betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. And any reconstruction demonstrating such a flaw-revealing divergence should be dismissed outright, not presented as policy fodder. 


But there’s another issue at stake here.


Anthony Watts has surveyed over 75% of the 1,200-plus U.S. weather stations from which national temperatures are accumulated. Most of those were found to be inaccurate by more than 2°C, largely due to being located within ten meters of an artificial heating source. In fact, less than 10% met strict placement guidelines set forth by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Not to worry -- NOAA claims it has methods to “adjust” for such bias, including the use of “smoothing” adjustments to “homogenize” station data to that of surrounding stations.


Unpublished computer programs artificially adjusting the data -- what could possibly go wrong with that?


Would you be shocked to learn that at ICCC 3, Watts told us he had calculated such adjustments to raw temperature data between 1940 and 1999 to be 0.5°F to the positive?  That accounts for almost one half of the 1.2°F warming over the last century. 


And that’s here in America. Try to imagine what kind of shenanigans might be going on elsewhere in the world.

Consequently, even the “instrumental” temperatures the CRU crooks were using as a basis for fudging were likely themselves fudged.  So they were pumping the incline while hiding the decline.

Hold the Fudge, and the MWP Won’t Budge

In a June 2003 e-mail to Jones and company, Mann discussed the notion of expanding CRU charts to two millennia in an effort to “try to "contain" the putative "MWP."” No deception in that, I suppose. Of course, an honest 2000-year reconstruction, such as this one from CO2Science.org, adapted from a 2005 Moberg, et al  temperature history derived from tree-rings and lake and ocean sediments, would actually emphasize rather than “contain” the MWP:


Any questions why Mann and friends work so diligently to “contain” (hide) the MWP?


As you can see, the post-LIA warming that began around 1850 is neither unprecedented nor spectacular. And it's certainly not worth rewiring the economic circuitry of the planet over.


And the CRU/IPCC reconstructions have been counterfeited for the express purpose of hiding that very fact.


After all, the stakes are enormous: perhaps trillions of dollars and unquestionably every American’s personal liberties. Tomorrow, over 20,000 delegates from 193 nations will gather in Copenhagen to craft an agreement which would not only force American power consumption to levels equal to those of about 1910, but would also have us pay reparations for an imaginary “climate debt” we’ve accumulated by building the world’s greatest economy of all time. That debt is based on the amount of CO2 our financial growth has purportedly pumped into the atmosphere, which, according to the conclusions of the IPCC and based largely upon reports from the CRU, has selfishly imperiled the planet by inducing climate change.


Of course, asking Americans to pay reparations based on the claim they’ve done harm to other nations by spoiling the climate is like asking me to pay damages to my neighbor based on his claim that he can’t sell his house because my great-grandmother’s ghost is haunting it.


As many have known and as Climategate has proven, both situations are equally preposterous.


But at least belief in ghosts is only marginally inspired by fraud.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
 at December 07, 2009 - 10:30:55 AM EST




Question for Bill O’Reilly: Who’s the Idiot Now?


AIM Column  |  By Cliff Kincaid  |  December 6, 2009


Now that ClimateGate has so clearly exposed the fraudulent nature of some of those behind the theory, O’Reilly should himself “come clean”...


The ClimateGate scandal demonstrates that some of the key figures behind the man-made global warming theory manipulated the "science" and hid data. Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, says such conduct may be criminal.

Bill O'Reilly should lead the effort to put these criminals in jail. Why? He was misled by them.  In a 2007 interview on CBS's "60 Minutes," O'Reilly said not only that "global warming is here" but that those opposed to the theory were "idiots."

Who's the idiot now?

Accuracy in Media never bought into the media-hyped theory. Over the years, under the leadership of AIM founder Reed Irvine, we held numerous panels at our conferences on the subject of how the "science" behind the man-made global warming theory was being manipulated. Dr. S. Fred Singer was a regular speaker. In fact, our recent 40th anniversary conference had a panel discussion, "Global Warming: Fact or Media Myth?," featuring Lord Christopher Monckton, Marc Morano of Climate Depot, and Ann McElhinney, director of the powerful film, Not Evil Just Wrong.

AIM published Jerry Carlson's, Will Media Expose Global Warming Con Job?, in February 2008. Some of our other articles include, "Media promote Global Warming Fraud" and Roger Aronoff's "Media Frenzy Over Global Warming." and "More Hot Air on Global Warming."

May I be permitted to say, "We told you so."

One of our best AIM Reports on the subject was Roger Aronoff's "Flip-Flop: From Global Cooling to Warming," on how some "scientists" and journalists once promoted the theory that the earth was cooling.

But the liberals weren't the only frauds and/or dupes. 

"Government's gotta be proactive on environment," O'Reilly told Mike Wallace during that "60 Minutes" interview. "Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn't here. That's ridiculous."

We don't expect the liberals in the media and elsewhere to apologize. Their standards are low, if not non-existent. But O'Reilly claims to hold himself to higher standards. He should prove it.

It is important to note that O'Reilly flip-flopped, saying in 2008 that it was "all guesswork" as to whether global warming is "natural" or "man-made."

We don't need a body language expert to conclude that O'Reilly didn't know what he's talking about. He was not alone but he did have a popular cable program.

Obviously confused and then unwilling to do the hard work, O'Reilly said back in 2002 that "I have never understood the resistance to the concept of global warming." He faulted Rush Limbaugh for rejecting evidence from "reputable scientists" but didn't name any.

His evidence? O'Reilly declared, "When I was a kid, we used to be able to skate on frozen ponds for two months. Now if you get a week of natural ice, that's a cold winter."

O'Reilly's pathetic treatment of this matter received our attention back in 2004 in a column we headlined, "Flip-flopper Bill O'Reilly." We noted that O'Reilly had claimed that unnamed scientists at MIT, whom he described as "the best in the world," believe that "all this fossil fuel is hurting the earth" and that global warming is occurring and must be urgently addressed. However, the most prominent expert on global warming at MIT, meteorologist Dr. Richard Lindzen, had not been invited on "The Factor." Lindzen is a leading critic of the theory.

On July 13, 2009, as noted by Gateway Pundit, O'Reilly told his viewers that since 2001 we have witnessed "seven of the hottest years" on record. This was nonsense. On December 1, John Stossel entered the "No Spin Zone" and declared, "There hasn't been warming for the past eleven years and we have real problems in the world--millions are dying from malaria, malnutrition, bad hygiene. The idea that we should keep people poor by spending all this money on global warming is an awful idea."

But rather than apologize for misleading his viewers, O'Reilly adopted a new tack. He became an advocate of "global warming agnosticism" and said, "Only the Deity knows whether the planet is warming and who is at fault. But along with that, anything that we can do to make the planet cleaner, we should try to do."

O'Reilly is spinning so fast a body language expert would be of no practical use in determining what exactly he means.

Now that ClimateGate has so clearly exposed the fraudulent nature of some of those behind the theory, O'Reilly should himself "come clean" and set the standard for what the rest of the media should be and do. 

We suggest a Bill O'Reilly "Talking Points Memo" that includes:

"Factor Viewers: I was wrong about global warming. I didn't do my homework. I jumped to conclusions and flip-flopped. What's worse, I accused those of telling the truth of being idiots. I was the idiot. For that I apologize."

It is incumbent on O'Reilly not only to apologize to his viewers but to work actively to expose the evidence of what Beisner calls "serious scientific malfeasance--the fabrication, corruption, destruction, hiding, and cherry-picking of data," as well as "intimidation of dissenting scientists and journal editors--and efforts to evade disclosure under Freedom of Information Laws in the United Kingdom and the United States..."

Naming names, Beisner told this columnist, "Rational inquiry, reasoned discussion, and open debate are the victims of such men as Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Ben Santer, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and other scientific high priests of the religion of manmade global warming exposed in ClimateGate, along with their non-scientist acolytes like Al Gore and Maurice Strong."

He adds, however, that "There's a silver lining to this cloud: All of their victims may be resurrected by the misconduct's exposure. Thousands and thousands of scientists the world over, not to mention federal and state attorneys general and university academic fraud investigators, now need to restore scientific integrity and the open, transparent quest for truth by holding these scientists accountable and demanding absolute public openness in all future scientific research."

Beisner says that "the scientists, and with them the institutions that employ them, who violate the canons of complete openness with all the process and products of publicly funded research, should be held liable and required to repay every penny of the millions of dollars in research grants they've received."

Equally important is that their motives be exposed. In this case, the obvious intention is to destroy the American way of life through higher taxes, even on a global level.

As I told Foxnews.com for their article, "Critics Decry 'One-Sided' Media Coverage of Climate Change Debate," our media have not only embraced the bogus "science" and the fraudulent theory, they have failed to tell the American people what is in the draft treaty being debated at the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) taking place at Bella Center in Copenhagen from December 7-15.

According to the conference website, President Barack Obama is shifting the timing of his visit to the international climate summit in Copenhagen "as prospects for a political agreement at the event seem more likely."

I took my cue from Lord Monckton and read the document. Page 83 raises the possibility of "cap-and-trade schemes and carbon taxes." Page 134 suggests a "global levy" on carbon dioxide emissions, including from international aviation and maritime transport. Page 135 suggests an "international adaption levy on airfares" and a global tax on international financial markets.

We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars.

As Monckton suggests, if you read the entire document you come away convinced that these people want to put in place a world government. Yet, the United States was born in a tax revolt when King George tried to tax us.

Freedom of the press does not mean the right to lie. It is time to tell the truth about those who have been lying to us.


The $50 Billion New Socialist Media


AIM Report  |  By Cliff Kincaid  |  December 2, 2009


In response to an inquiry from Accuracy in Media, McChesney couldn’t name one conservative who has been on his show since it was launched in 2002. 


Robert W. McChesney, the socialist professor whose Free Press organization is leading the charge for the $50 billion transformation of the media, hosts a one-sided, tax-supported radio program sponsored by the University of Illinois that could serve as a model for the "New Public Media" the group has envisioned for America.

As Accuracy in Media was the first to disclose, McChesney recently introduced Obama's anti-American pastor Jeremiah Wright at a celebration of the socialist publication Monthly Review. Wright praised Marxism and called America "land of the greed and home of the slave."

As AIM has documented, McChesney's organization, Free Press, has led the campaign for what it calls "New Public Media." McChesney's "Media Matters" show on WILL radio AM 580 in Urbana, Illinois, may be the model for what Free Press has in mind. The Sunday show is an examination of politics and media issues from a hard-left perspective and serves as a personal propaganda vehicle for McChesney's favorite political causes and candidates.

In response to an inquiry from Accuracy in Media, McChesney couldn't name one conservative who has been on his show since it was launched in 2002.  

"There is no shortage of 'conservative' talk available to listeners in our community," he told us, presumably referring to other stations." There are precious few programs anywhere on the dial that feature many of the guests we have."

This may indeed be true. A review of the archives of the McChesney radio show finds interviews with a steady stream of left-wing activists, many of them from the "media reform" movement that McChesney has dedicated much of his academic life to creating and nurturing (McChesney is still on the Free Press board). These include John Nichols, Ben Scott, Josh Silver, Derek Turner, and Craig Aaron from Free Press, which McChesney co-founded in 2002. Interestingly, Scott was one of McChesney's students and helped produce his radio show before going to work for then-Rep. Bernie Sanders, a self-declared socialist, and then becoming director of policy for Free Press. 

McChesney has provided a platform for representatives of the left-wing media watchdog organization that also calls itself Media Matters. Topics have included "How hate talk radicalized the American right," "How the press rolled over for Bush," and "What liberal media?" The entire thrust of the program is that the media are too conservative and too "capitalist." 

McChesney has also interviewed FCC commissioner Michael Copps a number of times on his show. Copps appeared at the 2008 Free Press conference and used the Obama campaign slogan, "Yes, we can," as he urged the thousands of "progressives" in the audience to elect Barack Obama and bring "change" to Washington, D.C.

No Fairness Or Balance Here

The one-sided nature of the show is ironic since Free Press regularly attacks Fox News for not being truly "fair and balanced." Indeed, when one of its former board members, Van Jones, was being exposed on Fox News for his communist views and background, Free Press said this "visionary and principled" leader was the target of a "smear campaign." Later, after Jones was ousted from his White House job, Craig Aaron of Free Press called Glenn Beck, who had been exposing Jones, an agent of "fear and misinformation," without explaining what facts about Jones had been misrepresented. 

WILL Radio AM 580, affiliated with National Public Radio and sponsored by the University of Illinois, received $1.2 million from the University of Illinois and almost $1.6 million in federal grants, including from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), in 2008.

Under the law, 47 U.S. Code, Section 396(g)(1)(A), programs funded by the CPB are supposed to be objective and balanced. But McChesney openly flouts the law and does not even seem to be familiar with the legal obligations that are supposed to apply to his show and others.
McChesney told AIM that his program "is very popular in our community" and that "The free market has spoken." But his show is not dependent on the free market. Rather, it is supported by tax dollars and on-air fundraisers hosted by McChesney and guests such as Noam Chomsky of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a Communist Party spin-off.


New Socialist Media

While the McChesney show has a very small listening audience, its format and themes may give us some insight into the kind of "new media" we could expect from passage of the $50 billion "Public Media Trust Fund," a Free Press proposal which is supposed to be financed by a tax on home electronic devices. This would be on top of the $8 billion from taxpayers that has been provided to the CPB for public TV and radio since 1967. (The CPB currently receives about $400 million a year.)

A professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, McChesney has said that "media reform" should be part of the march toward socialism in America and that capitalism has to be dismantled "brick by brick." Van Jones, the ousted communist "Green Jobs Czar" of the Obama Administration, served on the Free Press board with McChesney in 2007 and 2008.

Despite its socialist orientation, Free Press is financially supported by extremely wealthy individuals such as George Soros, the leftist billionaire, and Marcy Carsey, one of the creators of "The Cosby Show" whose net worth has been estimated at $600 million. Carsey serves on the Free Press board and was a top Obama inauguration donor, having contributed $50,000 to the event. 


Where Is The Balance?

Jay Pearce, director of creative content of WILL Radio at the University of Illinois  and executive producer of McChesney's radio show, declared, "That's a good question," when asked why the radical "media scholar" fails to include interviews with any identifiable conservatives on the air.
Mark Leonard, general manager of WILL, said, "It doesn't concern me," when asked about the complete lack of conservative guests. "What we celebrate is a diversity of points of view," he said, although he couldn't name one conservative on the air on WILL. He said he assumes that conservatives sometimes call into the "Media Matters" program, and that was good enough for him.

The biased programming contradicts the purposes of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and requires objectivity and balance in programs funded by the CPB.

"From its advent more than four decades ago, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has had a legal mandate to ensure 'strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature,'" the CPB says. "This principle is part of the bedrock of public broadcasting in America, a country built upon a foundation of lively and open political and social discourse."

These descriptions of some of his recent shows and guests provide an illustration of the one-sided news and information that he regularly puts on the air:


·                  Wendell Potter speaks out on "the need for a fundamental overhaul of the American health care system..."


·                  Glenn Greenwald "examines the manipulative electoral tactics used by the GOP and propagated by the establishment press."


·                  John Wilson, author of "President Barack Obama: A More Perfect Union."



·                  Robb Weissman examines "the activities of multinational companies."


·                  Kevin Phillips talks about his book on "the global crisis of American capitalism."



·                  Greg Mitchell, author of "Why Obama Won."


·                  Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive magazine, "which is one of the leading voices for peace and social justice in this country."


Interestingly, on February 18, 2007, McChesney interviewed Mark Lloyd, now the FCC chief diversity officer who was then a fellow at the Soros-funded Center for American Progress. He urged more federal involvement in telecommunications policy, including more tax dollars for a "fully-funded" public broadcasting. McChesney said Lloyd was so informative that he should be a "permanent guest." Lloyd returned the favor, saying, "Much of what I learned about public broadcasting, early years, came from reading you Bob."

Testimony that Lloyd provided to a congressional forum in 2005 headed by far-left Democratic Rep. John Conyers raises even more questions about his totalitarian mind-set and background.

Declaring that media bias "led to the persecution of Paul Robeson and the promotion of Joe McCarthy," Lloyd tried to convey the impression that Robeson had been unfairly targeted by anti-communist congressional investigations, perhaps by Senator McCarthy himself, and that the media had been part of the process.

While Robeson deserved praise for his artistic talents, there is no excuse at this late date for ignorance about Robeson's real record not only as a secret member of the Communist Party USA but as an apologist for communist tyranny. Lloyd's comments suggest that he would have preferred that the media not make an issue of Robeson's involvement in an international movement that has cost the lives of more than 100 million people. 

At a 2008 "media reform" conference sponsored by Free Press, Lloyd declared that the Marxist revolution in Venezuela under Chavez was "incredible" and "dramatic" but that the "property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled" against the would-be dictator and supported a coup against him. However, Lloyd said that Chavez wised up and "then started to take the media seriously..." 

The implication of these remarks is that Chavez dealt with his opponents in the media by trying to control or silence them, and that Lloyd supports that strategy when dealing with opponents of revolutionary Marxism here in the U.S.


Partisan Political Agenda

While he postures as a "media scholar," McChesney is himself a political and partisan activist, as demonstrated in Federal Election Commission (FEC) records. These disclose thousands of dollars in financial contributions from McChesney to political candidates, all of them Democrats except for one Green Party nominee in Illinois, a retired visiting professor at the University of Illinois by the name of Carl Estabrook.

McChesney used his radio show back in 2002 to promote Estabrook, who holds the view that Israel is "a wholly-owned subsidiary of the United States government" and a "pariah state" engaged in an illegal occupation. 

McChesney contributed to Barack Obama in 2004, when he was running for the Senate in Illinois, and then-Rep. and now Senator Bernie Sanders, socialist from Vermont.

But in 2008, he supported Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who advocated a federal "Department of Peace," and former Senator John Edwards, later exposed as an adulterer. Back in 2000, McChesney contributed to Ralph Nader's run for president.

On the Senate level, McChesney contributed financially to Senators Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Tester of Montana, and James Webb of Virginia, and Connecticut Senate candidate Ned Lamont. McChesney featured both Brown and Sanders on his radio show several times. 

McChesney also contributed to the Progressive Patriots Fund, the leadership political action committee of Senator Feingold, and the campaigns of Reps. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (Illinois), Chet Edwards (Texas) and Donna Edwards (Maryland).


More Soros Money

McChesney's well-financed Free Press is not alone in the effort to transform the media along Marxist lines. Supporting the project is the so-called Center for American Progress (CAP), the Soros-funded group that employed Mark Lloyd before he went to work at the FCC as Associate General Counsel and chief diversity officer. CAP released a proposal for "an independent and stable funding stream for public media" in its Change for America book project that was designed to influence the Obama Administration. The sources for the report included books and articles written by McChesney.

The author, Lauren Strayer, was a producer at Air America, the liberal radio network that went through bankruptcy in 2006.

Not surprisingly, Strayer would later surface as a contributor to the Free Press report, "Public Media's Moment," which urged "new public funding for new public media" and the creation of a "White House Commission on Public Media" to bring this about.

This same proposal was recently adopted by discredited former CBS Evening News anchorman Dan Rather, who called for a "White House Commission on Public Media" during an appearance before the Aspen Institute. Rather was a featured speaker at the 2008 conference of McChesney's Free Press and has become a hero of the progressive "media reform" movement.

You may not have noticed that the Obama Administration, in addition to trying to seize control of the health care and energy sectors, is implementing a national "broadband plan" to redefine the media and transform America's system of government. It's designed, they say, to provide "open government and civic engagement." But it looks increasingly like an excuse for the federal government to control the Internet and access to information and even tell us what is truth

Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute recently explained at a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) "National Broadband Plan Workshop" that it is necessary to have "a common space with shared facts." Armed with $7.2 billion of "stimulus" money, the federal government is going to provide this. It looks like various progressive groups are lining up at the public trough for their share of the loot. They have in mind what the George Soros-funded Free Press calls "an alternative media infrastructure."

A new national broadband plan, combined with the just-announced FCC plan for "net neutrality," or regulating access to the Internet, provides the opportunity for the federal government to  define a  "new public square" with a "common space with shared facts," as Ornstein put it at the August 6 FCC event. He explained, "It's something that was easier when we had three broadcast channels and virtually everybody in the society tuned into them."

Those were the days, you may remember, when Walter Cronkite claimed, "That's the way it is," and many people believed him. We know better now. But Ornstein seems to be pining for the "good old days" when Cronkite and other liberals dominated the dissemination of news and information.

These days we have conservative talk radio, Fox News, and alternatives to the "mainstream" media on the Internet. It is obvious that the Obama Administration and its progressive backers don't appreciate this new state of affairs.

Ornstein contrasted what can be, under federal direction, to what we are witnessing "now on health reform," when so many dissenting voices are being heard. He added, "It becomes much more difficult when you have a cacophonous system with fragmented areas of communication." And that "cacophony and fragmentation" is most apparent on the Internet, he said.

While the Internet is apparently confusing people with too much information, Ornstein said that the Internet also offers "multiple opportunities" to "develop a public square." He made these remarks at an event presided over by Obama's FCC chairman Julius Genachowski. The assumption of the exercise was that the federal government, under the cover of a national broadband plan, should not only regulate the Internet but provide new media for the public. 


Telling People What To Think

Assisting Genachowski is Mark Lloyd, Associate General Counsel and chief diversity officer at the agency. Lloyd used to work at the Benton Foundation, which is assisting this effort and previously issued a report recommending that the Obama Administration "should adopt policies to ensure that all Americans" have the ability to:


·                  "Know when you need information to help resolve a problem;


·                  "Know from whom, when, where, and how to seek that needed information;


·                  "Know how to differentiate between authentic and unauthentic information;


·                  "Know how to organize information and interpret it correctly once retrieved; and


·                  "Know how to use the information to solve the problem or make the decision."


The idea of the federal government telling people how to "differentiate between authentic and inauthentic information" is frightening. But this is part of Benton's "Action Plan for America."

Once Mark Lloyd left the Benton Foundation for the Center for American Progress, the two organizations collaborated on a letter demanding that the FCC require that broadcasters meet "public interest" obligations, provide access to the media by various groups, and "enhance political discourse." All of these measures are designed to give left-wing "progressives" more access to the media.

Now Lloyd is in a position to bring this about through federal regulation.

"What we really need in this country," Lloyd says, "is... a competitive alternative to commercial broadcasting" that would be supported by the public and "fully financed."

It sounds suspiciously like the "new public square" is the "public option" for the media. But so far there seems to be little debate or even discussion over what they have in store for us, and how they have already obtained $7.2 billion for this extreme makeover not only of our media but our system of government.

Computer Models and Computer Modelers, Goon Squad,Wikipediia

Climategate; The Supporting Cast - Thought Police Anyone?


Dr. Tim Ball  Bio



 By Dr. Tim Ball  Monday, December 7, 2009

Mike Mann, Eric Steig, William Connolley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Ray Bradley, Amy Clement, Rasmus Benestad, Caspar Ammann
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.



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.


Copenhagen climate conference

Organized, Controlled Propaganda

 By Online  Sunday, December 6, 2009

The following link is to a Guardian.co.uk news website, which in this article they tout about being the team which coordinated the text that over 50 newspapers will run in an organized reporting effort.

As stated in the second paragraph of this article…


This unprecedented project is the result of months of negotiations between the papers to agree on a final text, in a process that mirrors the kind of diplomatic wrangling among the world’s governments that is likely to precede any potential deal on climate change.


Copenhagen climate conference

More than 50 papers join in front-page leader article on climate change
Opinion piece to be published in 56 papers across 45 countries – including the Guardian, Le Monde and two Chinese papers


The Guardian has teamed up with more 50 papers worldwide to run the same front-page leader article calling for action at the climate summit in Copenhagen, which begins tomorrow.

This unprecedented project is the result of months of negotiations between the papers to agree on a final text, in a process that mirrors the kind of diplomatic wrangling among the world’s governments that is likely to precede any potential deal on climate change.

Fifty-six papers in 45 countries published in 20 different languages have joined the initiative, and will feature the leader in some form on their front pages.

Rest of Article

This information proving the corruption and organized propaganda in the reporting of facts and truth - apparently it’s not just our MSM - must be spread across the internet. Everyone MUST be made aware of the fact the papers being allowed to particpate by the U.N. (that’s right…the one’s being allowed to participate) have already planned the text to run front page before the summit even begins. And do understand the seriousness of my stating “the one’s allowed”...Conservative sources has been denied access to the Conference by the United Nations organization. That’s also correct…the United Nations is controlling which media organizations will be allowed to cover the conference. Anyone noticing what’s going on here?
This needs to go viral my fellow Americans!


”The Book of Truth’s Strong Sorrows"

A Christmas Gift that will one day lead your grandchildren out of the dark


Judi McLeod  


 By Judi McLeod  Sunday, December 6, 2009

imageMake Christmas 2009 count for something by writing a Book of Truth for your grandchildren and their children.

The Book of Truth may someday in the far away future be the key to freedom rising out of the ashes. 

Entitle your Book of Truth “Strong Sorrows”, which is a simple play on the names of the two men most responsible for stealing freedom from humanity, Maurice Strong and George Soros.

While the culmination of their life’s work takes place at the COP 15 climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark over the next two weeks, Strong and Soros won’t likely be there.  They will watch and wait from their comfort lairs, Canadian Strong in his beloved China and Soros, only God knows where.

The Copenhagen path to the false God of the United Nations will be well-trodden. Some 17,000 delegates from over the globe will attend the conference carbon footprint writ large. 

Some 98 leaders and heads of state will be in Copenhagen at some point during the two-week leading-up-to-last-week-before-Christmas global event,  with most Pooh-bahs, attending for the crucial final two days on December 17 and 18.

Like everything decent, Christmas trees have been banned from the summit.  No Christmas trees, but delegates can avail themselves of the the city’s prostitutes who have offered their services free to anyone who wants it.

The summit, whose promoters boast that 65% of all food and drink available is organic in nature, will outdo the UN’s Johannesburg summit,  which was all about ending poverty.  While delegates in Johannesburg gorged on pails of caviar, dined on lobster and steak, washed down with champagne, thirsty children lined up not even a mile away for a drop of water from a single spigot.

Tell your children who can tell theirs how wanton hypocrisy over cooked up climate change turned the world upside down.

Tell them in your Book of Truth’s Strong Sorrows how unscrupulous politicians banding together the world over like Britain’s Gordon Brown, Germany’s Angela Merkel, France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and Johnny Come Lately Barack Obama sold out their country’s sovereignty for fast cap and trade cash and the sheer power made possible by a UN-manufactured One World Government.

Don’t forget to record for your grandchildren’s posterity, the place of mainstream churches in the hypocrisy.  Churches across Denmark will be ringing their bells 350 times at 3 p.m. on December 13, “in recognition of the 350 parts of C02 per million that represents the safe upper limit for our atmosphere.”

Don’t leave out the Hollywood celebrities, not the least of whom is Leonardo Di Caprio,  who will temporarily leave their lavish parties behind, adding their voices to build pressure for a global warming deal.

Tell your children how individual rights began a slide down the greased pole when governments could lean into private homes and turn the thermostat up or down at will; when Thomas Edison’s light bulb was tossed on top of the banned list and when how long you bathed or what you ate became Big Brother’s business.

The serfs known as the Danish population have been on an enforced year-long tutelage from their government as it prepared for the Copenhagen summit.  They were instructed to take only short showers, to change all their light bulbs, to forgo public transit for their bicycles and to eat less bacon.

Don’t forget to add how the summit took place during ClimateGate, science’s biggest scandal ever when leaked emails between some of the leaders of global warming alarmists was still being suppressed by the MSM.

Meanwhile, the oft-repeated line,  “the stockings will be hung by the chimney with care in the hopes that St. Nicholas soon will be there”  will be lovingly put away for another year after December 25.  But The Book of Truth’s Strong Sorrows will live on as hope and real change for generations yet to be born.

If the UN can control energy use, it controls mankind

UN Climate Treaty: A Sneak Attack on Humanity



Alan Caruba  


 By Alan Caruba  Sunday, December 6, 2009

imageIt’s ironic that the United Nations Conference on Climate Change began on December 7th. For an aging portion of the U.S. population, December 7, 1941 will always mark the Japanese Empire’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. It drew the U.S. into World War Two.

Humanity has been threatened for decades by the effort of the United Nations, through its environmental program in general and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in particular, to impose an international treaty that would put the UN in charge of all energy use.

The treaty, like the former Kyoto Protocols, would have no basis in science.

The pretext has been that “global warming” is the result of greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the Earth to warm exponentially. The IPCC encountered a problem when the planet began to measurably cool beginning in 1998.

Satellite data since then have demonstrated that the average global temperature has been dropping, mostly in response to the Sun whose solar radiation has moved into what is called “a solar minimum”, a reduction in magnetic storms. This is a natural cycle the Sun has gone through many times over the billions of years of the Earth’s existence.

Like an invading army, more than 16,500 of the world’s greatest liars will descend on Copenhagen for what may well be the last attempt by the United Nations to use the “global warming” fraud to alter the economies of industrialized nations in the name of “saving the Earth.”

We now know conclusively that a key element of the fraud, the data put forth by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, was deliberately falsified. This will test whether the participants in the conference can maintain their massive, international fraud.


If the UN can control energy use, it controls mankind.

The Copenhagen conference has already generated a torrent of green lies from environmental organizations. The fraud-—now dubbed Climategate—-will require the masters of worldwide media to choose between repeating discredited climate lies or to finally report the views of legitimate climate scientists and others that have been repudiating them for decades.

Here are just a few examples of the Climategate propaganda being perpetrated.

Despite the revelations of a massive climate data fraud initially reported on November 20, on November 23, the World Wildlife Fund released a report filled with the usual predictions of climate-related catastrophes, from hurricanes destroying New York to changes in the Asian monsoon patterns.

The World Wildlife Federation announced that it is hosting “Eco-Schools USA” intended to “Green K-12 buildings, grounds and curriculum.” Instead of learning the three R’s, in addition to some real science, groups like the WWF have been steadily indoctrinating young Americans to believe the Earth is doomed.

In November, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a $52,000 grant for projects in which students “will explore their coastal ecosystems” in New Jersey. The projects “emphasize the importance of taking action to protect the environment.” Not much money, but “since 1992, EPA has funded over $45 million in environmental education grants to support more than three thousand projects across the country.” Is this education or indoctrination?

The EPA has gone on record dismissing the revelations of distorted and false climate data used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is moving ahead to produce a finding that would permit the agency to regulate carbon dioxide emissions despite ample evidence that it plays no role in climate change. This reflects the effort of environmentalists to control energy use.

A group called Rare Conservation that describes itself as “a leader in local social and behavioral change for global biodiversity conservation” released a statement to the effect that “tropical deforestation is widely believed to be responsible for 15-20% of climate change.” The Washington Post reported their absurd claim that the Earth’s great “carbon sinks”, oceans and forests, will not be able to absorb increased levels of carbon dioxide, though they have been doing this for millennia!

In October, it was reported that “The federal government has paid out billions of dollars to environmental groups for attorney fees and costs, according to data assembled by a Cheyenne, Wyoming lawyer. A review by the attorney, Karen Budd-Falen, revealed that “the government, between 2003 and 2007, paid more than $4.7 billion in taxpayer money to environmental law firms “and that’s just the lawsuits she tracked.”

It is very doubtful that Americans are aware that they have been paying billions for green lawsuits, many of which were intended to stop various forms of development, i.e. jobs, or to encumber agricultural activity.

Who has grown wealthy from the greening of America? In November, the Capitol Research Center compiled a list based on budget figures from environmental groups.


·                  Nature Conservancy, $910.7 million.

·                  Wildlife Conservation Society, $197.4 million,

·                  World Wildlife Fund, $169.5 million.

·                  Environmental Defense Fund, $108 million.

·                  Natural Resources Defense Fund, $122.8 million.

·                  Natural Resources Defense Council, $108 million.

·                  National Audubon Society, $92.7 million.

·                  Natural Wildlife Federation, $90.1 million.

·                  Sierra Club, $81.8 million.

·                  Sierra Club Foundation, $29.9 million.

·                  Greenpeace, Inc, $26.3 million.


Green education of schoolchildren

These are groups that have infiltrated the curriculums of the nation’s schools, frightening a generation of children with global warming claims, along with predictions of the extinction of species, rising sea levels to flood cities, and other base nonsense.

These are just a handful of environmental organizations that have grown fat while doing everything they could to slow the U.S. economy by acquiring private property to put it off-limits to mining, drilling, timber, and agricultural use, among others.

These are groups that have lobbied Congress for all manner of legislation and regulations that have encumbered industrial and agricultural development. The “Cap-and-Trade” bill, based on IPCC data, is awaiting a vote in the U.S. Senate. If passed, it would destroy all hope of any economic recovery.

These are groups that signed onto the global warming fraud and whose representatives will be attending the UN Conference on Climate Change.

It is a sneak attack on humanity.


Afghanistan: Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, Barack Hussein Obama, parallels however are quite striking

Surrender on a Timetable



Daniel Greenfield  



 By Daniel Greenfield  Sunday, December 6, 2009

imageNot long after taking power he announced that he was determined to see an end to the Afghan War. The number of troops serving in Afghanistan was increased to 108,000 and given a 1 year deadline. The allied regime in Afghanistan received a simple and direct message, that after a year they could no longer count on military support. It was time for the Afghan government to figure out how to make it on its own. It was bluntly suggested that they forget social reforms and seek to cut a deal with the Mujahadeen.

he year though was 1985, not 2009. And the leader in question was Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, not Barack Hussein Obama. The parallels however are quite striking. Like Obama, Gorbachev came to power and viewed the War as Afghanistan as a leftover of the old regime that was interfering with his broader multilateral goals. Gorbachev responded with a temporary surge and a year deadline for the Russian military and the Afghan government.

The result of Gorbachev’s surge on a timetable made 1985 the bloodiest year of the war for Russia. His timetable and public distaste for the war, effectively negated the temporary surge of manpower because the Mujahadeen didn’t have to defeat the Russian forces, all they needed to do was hang in there until the Russians got tired and left. The Russian timetable inspired a new show of unity from the Mujahadeen which united into a temporary coalition and escalated the violence. The withdrawal dragged on for another year. And then another. International negotiations and a final show of show, combined with behind the scenes Soviet deals cut with the Mujahadeen finally brought the Soviet presence to an end in Feb 1989.

Now 20 years later Obama is duplicating virtually all of Gorbachev’s mistakes, from the timetable to the public criticism of the war, to the backdoor negotiations with the Taliban. Unsurprisingly US casualties have already doubled under Obama. By dithering on his final decision and keeping McChrystal at bay, Obama demonstrated his lack of commitment to the war. And while his advisors might imagine that throwing another high profile media event in a symbolic location will solve all image problems, it will not. The Taliban scented blood as soon as Obama was elected. They scented blood again when Obama threw out a tepid speech, relying heavily on insincere Bush era sentiments that he had made a point of rejecting in the past, packed with a timetable and excuses for his allies on the left.

Karzai has already gotten the message and is now prepping for talks with the Taliban. Gorbachev has resurfaced from his tar pit of obscurity to advise Obama to begin withdrawing troops. Administration figures are sending conflicting messages on the credibility of the timetable. Pakistani leaders are complaining that Al Queda will pull out during the surge and focus its activities on Pakistan. The media is meanwhile taking an uncharacteristically hostile tone to the speech, describing it as “controversial” and playing up the difficulties of deployment. And the chaos is just beginning.

Obama’s decision was the safe one, signing on to a limited surge, followed by a graduated withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan timed to begin before the election, giving the public the feel good sensation of troops beginning to come home, but without showcasing the consequences of a complete US pullout. As always Obama did what was best for himself, spending what he considers to be worthless currency, the lives of US soldiers, and the already devalued American dollar in the way that will serve him best.

No one in the Obama Administration believes that the temporary surge will stabilize Afghanistan. And it showed in Obama’s speech, a long rambling series of justifications and recycled rhetoric. It’s as if Jesse Jackson and David Frum had collaborated on the speechwriting duties. Between the justifications for the original invasion of Afghanistan, the not too subtle attempt to blame Bush for the current situation, justifications for his own inability to reach a decision, references to completely mythical international troop contributions and more justifications to his liberal allies for being involved in the war in the first place… it was less a speech and more of a running defense against all the criticisms that he has received and expects to receive once the speech has been delivered.

Obama’s speech was essentially a long drawn out excuse note to everyone he was disappointing or upsetting, from the military to his liberal allies to Muslims around the world. It was a speech short on solutions or new policies, and long on vague rhetoric. But then Obama was not really trying to shake off the Bush legacy, but to exploit it this time out. In his speech Obama had managed to make his proposed retreat look like a courageous stand. Those in attendance on the base knew better, but many of those watching at home did not. And they were his real audience.

The Obama Administration had come in focusing on domestic policy, spending big on domestic projects that mainly benefited his own political allies on Wall Street and in the unions. But with approval ratings tanking and majorities polling against Obama’s policies, Afghanistan can actually seem safer than Porkulus. Traditionally Presidents have polled higher when international politics were in the picture, and Afghanistan gives Obama a place in the sun where he can’t be overshadowed by Pelosi, while at the same time cynically transposing public criticism of his own deficit spending, to the cost of the War on Terror.

There is a reason that Obama’s West Point speech was sandwiched between the public fallout over ObamaCare and his new planned shift to speaking out against the deficit. Sticking Afghanistan in there allows Obama to associate the deficit with Bush’s War on Terror, rather than his own stimulus package and bailout spending. It also casts his own spending in a patriotic light, rather than the cynical image of a political hack paying back his Wall Street donors and UAW and SEIU backers with trillions in taxpayer debt held by the People’s Republic of China. By playing the Wartime Emergency card, the White House Chicago crew think they can dampen down criticism of the deficit, as well as framing economic problems within the context of an ongoing war—both themes alluded to in Obama’s West Point speech.

For Obama, the risks of Afghanistan seem relatively negligible. The loss of American troops only troubles him as a political, rather than human problem. And while Obama would rather spend his money elsewhere, in his administration money is being spent as if it were an infinite commodity anyway. His only real reluctance to spending it in Afghanistan is that there are no union members there to take their cut. And whatever goes wrong, the blame can and always will be laid at Bush’s door. That makes Afghanistan the political equivalent of a drive thru, a place where Obama can score some political points before moving on to his real agenda.

This short intermission is only a segueway to pushing the next grandiose stimulus plan, and the backlash from his liberal allies who expected him to give them surrender on a silver platter, and were aching to see US helicopters abandoning terrified Afghanis by February, only allows Obama to claim that he is positioned on the middle ground above extremism and partisanship. But while Obama scores his political points, it is US forces who will be fighting and dying against an emboldened Taliban, while knowing that their own victories will be rendered meaningless in two years.

When Gorbachev pushed for a withdrawal from Afghanistan, he did so because he understood that the real battle was inside Russia’s borders where the Communist party was losing its grip on the country. Obama similarly wants to withdraw in order to focus on his real agenda, tightening the grip of the Democratic party and of his own left wing backers on America. For a man who considers his real “extremist” enemies to be Republicans not Taliban, the only real plans Obama has for Afghanistan is to surrender on a timetable.


Spews More CO2 than 60 Countries do in Entire Year -- COMBINED...
Saudia Arabia calls for 'climategate' investigation...

Never enough
Exclusive: Vox Day exposes methodical construction of progressive pyramid

Never enough

Posted: December 07, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 


In his book, "Liberal Fascism," Jonah Goldberg explains that the primary mechanism utilized by progressives in restructuring society to their liking is to disassociate every step in the program from the preceding and following ones. "It's just this one little brick," they explain to the conservative who is opposed to the idea of the proposed wall. "Don't be so paranoid ... you didn't mean to take it seriously when we said we intended to build an entire wall. What's the matter with this one brick?"

Of course, the minute that the conservative foolishly accedes to progressive blandishments and allows the brick to be placed, the progressive immediately declares the pressing need to move on to the next brick in the wall. Climategate notwithstanding, Al Gore must feel that the present brick is being satisfactorily laid at Copenhagen, because he has already moved on to declaring the need to further handicap the global economy by reducing the carbon emissions 25 percent more than the climate agreement that will be announced next week.

Even if a deal is reached at the U.N. climate change talks in Copenhagen next week, it will only be the first step toward the far more radical cuts that are needed in global carbon emissions, Al Gore, former vice president, told the Times last night. Gore said that to avoid the worst ravages of climate change world leaders would have to come together again to set more drastic reductions than those now planned. …

He insisted that the present goal set for Copenhagen of stabilizing world emissions of carbon dioxide at or below 450 parts per million – enough to prevent a rise in average global temperatures of no more than 2 degrees Celsius – was insufficient and a safer target would be 350 parts per million.

This is insane from historical, scientific, economic and political perspectives. It is historically insane because we know the planet was more than two degrees warmer as recently as 500 years ago. It is scientifically insane because we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the world is not warming according to any of the predictions based on models which are based on the idea that higher carbon dioxide levels produce higher temperatures. It is economically insane because it strengthens the contractionary forces that are already in the process of plunging the world into the greatest depression of the modern era. It is politically insane because it reverses more than 300 years of advancing human liberty and democracy.

The global climate-change crusade is nothing more than the latest in a very long line of schemes permitting the governing elite to maintain and expand their power. It will likely succeed, since the larger part of the population that is in a position to stop the crusade is too fat, unimaginative and apathetic to have much interest in what their nominal public servants have in mind for them. The beauty and the curse of a representative democracy is that the people usually get the government they deserve, and what comes out of Copenhagen should accurately testify to what the last 50 years of European and American democracy have merited.

Republics, like empires, rise and fall over time. What we appear to be witnessing this week as the global leaders go through the ritualized dance of reaching a public agreement is a significant step toward the fall of the American republic and the rise of what increasingly looks like one of the mightiest empires the world has ever known. This is not the first brick in the great pyramid of the new state religion, nor, as Al Gore has made abundantly clear, will it be the last one. We can only hope that this new secular priesthood is more circumspect and less bloody-minded than their historical predecessors.

Schools complain over supplies with Obama logo...

Eligibility issue
goes 'mainstream'

Exclusive: Joseph Farah emphatically declares,
'Day of reckoning coming for President Obama'


Big Brother's money grab
Exclusive: Barbara Simpson blasts government tax on citizens for dying


Big Brother's money grab

Posted: December 07, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 


The government calls it the federal estate tax; it's the inheritance tax. Shorthand, it's the death tax. There's no more appropriate name.

As soon as you die, the feds demand nearly half or more of everything you have. Like it or not – it's a tax for dying.

On the other hand, you could call it a living tax that is paid when you die.

As the year winds down and Congress is in a whirl of new laws, regulations and taxes, the estate tax is on the agenda, too.

In fact, Congress wanted to do something before the end of the year, so it wouldn't find itself imposing a retroactive tax increase next year.

The current law, part of the Bush-era tax cuts, says the first $3.5 million of an estate is exempt, but the balance is taxed at 45 percent.

In 2010, there would be no estate tax at all but the following year, and thereafter, everything over $1 million would be taxed at 55 percent.

Just think, if your house is valued at more than $1 million, you'll owe the feds 55 percent of everything else!

Democrats, not wanting to have a year without the tax, rushed a vote through the House last Thursday, 225-200. It extends the current 45 percent tax indefinitely, effectively canceling that one year of zero tax. All the Republicans voted no. In fact, many want a permanent repeal of the estate tax because of its destructive effect it on small businesses of all kinds.

The Senate still has to vote.

There's been a constant battle between those who want a permanent repeal and those who see estates as piles of gold and want as much of it as possible – upward of 65 percent and more.

There's no question the tax is destructive to small businesses. The family wants the children to carry on with the business. But after dad or mother dies, the children must come up with that 45 percent in cash, within nine months.

But businesses don't have that kind of cash around. To come up with it, the family is usually forced to sell the business – effectively destroying it.

It's been particularly devastating to small town newspapers, which have been picked up by corporate bottom feeders looking for control of small operations at fire-sale prices.

For farmers and ranchers it's perhaps worse. Their assets are tied up in equipment, livestock, buildings and land. The assessed valuation has little relationship to available cash.

In addition, most operate with loans, which are paid off when crops come in or livestock sold. They look "rich" on paper, but reality is quite different.

Again, because of the tax bill, the family is forced to sell but it's not just a business lost; the family farm/ranch house has to be sold, too. Everything is lost.

The American Family Business Institute, or AFBI, represents family businesses, farms and ranches and leads the fight to permanently repeal the estate tax. There have been eight different bills attempting that; the last, lost by four votes.

AFBI President Dick Patten told me the first estate tax was imposed to pay for World War I. It never went away and increased over the years. During the FDR administrations, it went from 45 percent to 77 percent and the exemptions changed.

He said Democrats want the tax to be 55 percent and that progressives in the House told him, "65 percent is actually a better rate."

Patten says family businesses provide 57 percent of all jobs in the country. One of AFBI's concerns is that when a death forces a sale, it often results in downsizing or closure of the company. The result is job losses and reduced taxes for local and state economies.

He told me of a family-owned manufacturing company that faced a tax bill of $28 million to be paid in cash in nine months. They got an offer for the business and raised the cash to pay the taxes, but the new owner moved the entire operation offshore.

So the feds got their money, but the family lost its business, people lost jobs and the local economy suffered.

Patten's view is that with the progressively higher estate tax, "we'll all be equally poor and equally dependent on the government."

Then again, if you have cash, investments or property at the time of your death, the only reason you do is because it's left over after you've paid taxes on it during your lifetime.

Payroll, unemployment, Social Security, Medicare, excise, sales, gift, transaction, licenses, luxury, import, export, business, tariffs, capital gains, assessment district, disposal, parcel, income, property, entertainment, tobacco, alcohol, motor vehicle, license, transportation, tolls, gasoline, special use – and on and on and on.

If you want it, have it, earn it, make it, buy it, sell it, use it, enjoy it, or dispose of it – it's taxed. Then when you die, they want a cut of what's left.

Government wants your money more than anything else. Politicians spend and need your money to do it.

The tax I detest most is the death tax. It's unfair and immoral.

You work a lifetime, earning money, caring for family, saving and investing, so in your later years you can care for yourself and leave something for the kids.

You might have a mom and pop store, a newspaper, a trucking company, a farm, a ranch or any business and you want your children to carry on.

It doesn't matter. The feds decide how much how much they'll take, right off the top, in cash in nine months.

During the House debate, Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., said, "Without the estate tax, you will have an aristocracy for the wealthy. America is and should be a meritocracy."

What a fool. He calls it a tax. I call it theft.





We've been had
Walter E. Williams decries fraud perpetrated by global-warming zealots

A Minority ViewWalter Williams

We've been had

Posted: December 09, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 


Last year, my column "Global warming rope-a-dope" (Dec. 24, 2008) started out: "Americans have been rope-a-doped into believing that global warming is going to destroy the planet. Scientists who have been skeptical about manmade global warming have been called traitors or handmaidens of big oil." New evidence proves that climatologists and environmental-policy advocates have not only fed us lies and engaged in scientific and academic fraud, but committed criminal acts as well.

Last month, Russian computer hackers obtained thousands of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. CRU has the world's largest temperature data set. In collaboration with scientists around the world, including the U.S., its research and mathematical models form the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 global-warming report.

The e-mails involved communication among climate researchers and policy advocates around the world who brazenly discuss both the destruction and hiding of data that does not support their global-warming claims. They discuss criminally deleting data rather than comply with Freedom of Information Act requests. There's also discussion of faking data for journals such as Nature, conspiring to keep opposing science out of peer-reviewed journals (which they controlled the editorial boards), and using statistical "tricks" to hide the cooling period of the last 10 years. One e-mail said, "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." Another said, "It would be nice to try to 'contain' the putative 'MWP,' even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back." MWP refers to the Medieval Warm Period (800 A.D. to 1300 A.D.) when the Earth was much warmer than it is now. This bothers the global warmers because they can't blame the temperature increase a thousand years ago on SUVs, coal-burning power plants, incandescent bulbs and 60-inch TV screens.

Editors of professional journals, who were willing to publish articles that disagreed with the warmers, were forced to resign – as was the case for editors at Climate Research and Geophysical Research Letters. A flagrant example of suppression is found in CRU Director Phil Jones' letter to Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann that questions whether the work of academics who question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the IPCC report, which represents the environmental extremist's view on climate science. Jones writes, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

The fact of the matter is an increasing amount of climate research suggests a possibility of global cooling. Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, emeritus professor at Western Washington University, says, "Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely." Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, currently at Uppsala University in Sweden asks, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"

Last year's column closed with my speculation that if ever "the permafrost returns to northern U.S., as far south as New Jersey as it once did, it's not inconceivable that Congress, caught in the grip of global warming zealots, would keep all the laws on the books they wrote in the name of fighting global warming. Personally, I would not put it past them to write more." This is confirmed by the Obama administration's climate czar, Carol Browner, who, despite dishonesty, fraud and criminality, says she considers the science on global warming settled.

Puncturing the climate balloon
Hurricane expert Bill Gray says e-mail revelations 'are but the tip of a giant iceberg'
--Climate Depot

Hurricane Expert Rips Climate Fears: 'There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination'  


Climategate revelations 'are but the tip of a giant iceberg'


Tuesday, December 08, 2009By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

The following commentary is by Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the renowned hurricane forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU).

Puncturing the Climate Balloon

By Dr. Bill Gray

December 8, 2009

Had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events I would have likely been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate degradation.


There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO_2 ) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.

Rising levels of CO_2 are not near the threat these alarmists have portrayed them to be. There has yet to be a honest and broad scientific debate on the basic science of CO_2 's influence on global temperature. The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO_2 are badly flawed. They should never have been used to establish government climate policy.

The last century's global warming of about 1 degree F is not a consequence of human activities. This warming is primarily the result of a multi-century changes in the globe's deep ocean circulation. These ocean current changes have lead to a small and gradual increase in the globe's temperature. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age and into a generally warmer climate state. This is akin to the warmer global climate of the Medieval Period. We can do nothing but adapt to such long period natural temperature changes.

The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years. This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the US and of foreign governments were ever made public.

The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO_2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO_2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate.

The Cap-and-Trade bill presently before Congress, the likely climate agreements coming out of the Copenhagen Conference, and the EPA's just announced decision to treat CO_2 as a pollutant represents a grave threat to the industrial world's continued economic development. We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth. Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country's sovereignty.


WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Famous weather scientist:
Climategate 'tip of iceberg'

'Conspiracy would become manifest'
if all climate research e-mails unveiled



Famous weather scientist: Climategate 'tip of iceberg'

'Conspiracy would become manifest' if all climate research e-mails unveiled

Posted: December 08, 2009
9:46 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



The Colorado scientist described by the Washington Post as "the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert" says the "Climategate" e-mails from the United Kingdom that revealed possible data manipulation are evidence of a conspiracy among "warmists," those who believe man's actions are triggering possibly catastrophic climate change.

"The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years," said Colorado State University's William Gray.

His annual hurricane forecasts are the standard for weather prognostications. His work pioneered the science of forecasting hurricanes, and he has served as
weather forecaster for the U.S. Air Force. He is emeritus professor of atmospheric science at CSU and heads the school's Department of Atmospheric Sciences Tropical Meteorology Project.

Gray was referring to e-mails and other information obtained by a hacker and posted on a Russian web server that included interactions among the world's most influential climate-change scientists.

One e-mail said: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Another expressed internal doubts: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change

Further, an e-mail exchange suggested the suppression of information: "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re (Assessment Report 4)? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis."

Gray said, "This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the U.S. and of foreign governments were ever made public."

His comments are posted at Climate Depot.com as world leaders are conferencing in Copenhagen to discuss taking drastic economic measures to curb "global warming."

Gray warns that the likely agreements coming out of Copenhagen, the cap-and-trade bill  before Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency's decision announced this week to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant "represents a grave threat to the industrial world's continued economic development."

"We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth," Gray said. "Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country's sovereignty."

He said he probably would have been concerned about the possibility people are causing serious global climate degradation "had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events."

"There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the Western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide … induced global warming disaster," he said. "These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards.

"These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation."

Gray said there still hasn't been an "honest and broad" scientific debate on the influence of CO2 on global temperature, contending the present models presented by scientists are flawed.

He cited a global warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century, and that's "not a consequence of human activities."

"The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate," he said.

Gray launched the practice of seasonal hurricane forecasts. After the 2005 Atlantic season, he said he was stepping down from the primary authorship of the CSU report, turning over those duties to Philip J. Klotzbach.

He's long described global warming as a hoax, telling the Post three years ago, "I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."

University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit

Myron Ebell of the GlobalWarming.org website, where "cooler heads prevail," said the e-mails obtained from the University of East Anglia were "shocking."

"It's kind of interesting to learn that petty politics seems to be more prevalent in the scientific community than in the political community," he said.

The documents, he said, "raise a huge number of questions about the integrity of a lot of people in the alarmist community."

"What I've seen there is a very strong effort to manage the issue by scientists and not as a scientific issue. It's very improper," he said. "One of the criticisms is that we need scientists to be scientists, and policy can be handled in public debate."

Phil Jones, head of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, confirmed the documents appeared authentic. He has temporarily stepped down while an investigation is taking place.

Despite the advocacy of a financially vested former vice president, Al Gore, and others, public opinion about whether mankind is causing an ultimately catastrophic rise in global temperatures is shifting.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has urged members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of nearly 32,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s, who believe humans likely have little or nothing to do with any "global warming."

The Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered, has steadily grown without any special effort or campaign.

But in the last few years, and especially because of the release of Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," the campaign has been reinvigorated.

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary moviegoers and to public-school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," project spokesman and founder Art Robinson has told WND.

Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, cofounded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later cofounded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

Paul later cited the petition results in  statement to Congress.

"Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas," Paul said. "They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters."

The petition states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Robinson has warned of serious political and economic consequences of assuming "global warming" results from mankind's actions.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he told WND.

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Global cooling documented in last decade 
Contradicts data released at Copenhagen climate summit

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Global cooling documented in last decade

Contradicts data released at Copenhagen climate summit

Posted: December 08, 2009
10:23 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi

© 2009 WorldNetDaily


The mainstream media is reporting the World Meteorological Organization's assessment of global average temperatures asserting this decade is "the warmest on record," without mentioning the WMO data actually documents the United States and Canada experienced cooler-than-average conditions since 2000.

The reports circulating from the U.N.'s climate summit in Copenhagen also don't mention scientific climate data that suggest the globe has cooled in the last 10 years.

Data from the U.S. National Climate Data Center indicate temperatures in the U.S. have cooled over the last decade at a rate that projects to a decline of 7.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

Source: U.S. National Climate Data Center and c3headlines.com

Satellite data recorded at the University of Alabama in Huntsville show a global cooling pattern over the last decade, contrary to the WMO observations reported in Copenhagen.

U.N. scientist predicts decade of global cooling

Global warming
alarmists were thrown into disarray last September at the U.N.'s world climate conference when a noted global warming scientist presented data showing the earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and likely is entering "one or two decades during which temperatures cool."
Mojib Latif, a climate physicist at the Liebniz Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of Kiel in Germany and a lead author for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, produced evidence predicting two decades of natural global cooling caused by cyclical changes in the atmosphere and ocean currents in the North Atlantic, known as the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation.

Source: U.S. National Climate Data Center and c3headlines.com

Speaking at the World Meteorological Organization's World Climate Conference 3 in Geneva, Switzerland, Latif produced slides that documented cooling temperatures that could be a 10- to 20-year phase into the future.

"I'm not one of the skeptics," Latif has affirmed. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."

Global warming ideologues disagree

After publishing the results, proponents of anthropogenic global warming put considerable pressure on Latif to assert his belief that the earth would be considerably warmer by 2050 unless global greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.

Latif's scientific paper published in Nature in May 2008 concludes: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic arming."
While careful not to confront the conventional global warming hypothesis directly, Latif and his colleagues stated clearly their forecast for global cooling: "Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: Over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST (sea surface temperature) and European and North Atlantic surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged."





WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Science czar's guru backed eugenics 
Sought to limit 'unfit' from 'breeding' to save civilization


Science czar's guru backed eugenics

Sought to limit 'unfit' from 'breeding' to save civilization

Posted: December 09, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi

© 2009 WorldNetDaily


This is the second of a three-part series of articles exploring Obama administration science czar John P. Holdren's self-acknowledged intellectual debt to geochemist and early ecological alarmist Harrison Brown. In the first part, WND reported Brown recommended pumping carbon dioxide into the global atmosphere to promote the food production needed to prevent starvation resulting from over-population. In the third part, WND will examine Brown's call for global government.

In the 1950s, geochemist Harrison Brown – a member of the Manhattan Project who supervised the production of plutonium – advocated the use of government-mandated eugenics to prevent overpopulation from ecological disaster that could cause civilization to "revert to a way of life not unlike that which existed in Europe in the seventeenth century or that which exists in China today."

"Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock?" Brown asked on page 104 of his 1954 book "The Challenge of Man's Future."

Answering his question, Brown wrote: "Unfortunately, at the present time, there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature."

He continued: "Thus, we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness or blindness, or absence of limbs."

Lamenting that "man's knowledge of human genetics is too meager at the present time to permit him to be a really successful pruner," Brown suggested that within another 10 or 15 generations, "understanding of human genetics will be sufficient to permit man to do a respectable job of slowing down the deterioration of the species."

Brown mentored Obama science czar

In 1986, Obama science czar John Holdren co-edited a scientific reader, "Earth and the Human Future: Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown."

In one of his introductory essays for the book, Holdren acknowledged he read Brown's "The Challenge of Man's Future" when he was in high school and that the book had a profound effect on his intellectual development.

Holdren acknowledged Brown's book transformed his thinking about the world and "about the sort of career I wanted to pursue."

Holdren further commented in a glowing fashion that Brown's book was a work "that should have reshaped permanently the perceptions of all serious analysts about the interactions of the demographic, biological geophysical, technological, economic and sociopolitical dimensions of contemporary problems."

Holdren specifically lauded Brown's "insights from anthropology, history, economics, geochemistry, biology, and the study of technology" when he endorsed Brown as a mentor.

Nowhere in the 1986 book written to celebrate Brown does Holdren separate himself from Brown's enthusiastic endorsement of eugenics.

"Thirty years after Harrison Brown elaborated these positions, it remains difficult to improve on them as a coherent depiction of the perils and challenges we face," Holdren stressed in his 1986 introduction, commenting he includes himself among those "who have been restating his [Brown's] points (usually less eloquently) in the three decades since he first made them."

As recently as 2007, Holdren gave a speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in which his last footnote included Brown as one of the "several late mentors" to whom he was thankful for "insight and inspiration."

In the first slide of this presentation, Holdren acknowledged, "My pre-occupation with the great problems at the intersection of science and technology with the human condition – and with the interconnectedness of these problems with each other – began when I read 'The Challenge of Man's Future' in high school. I later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech."

Brown openly advocated eugenics

On page 105 of "The Challenge of Man's Future," Brown advocated the implementation of eugenics in a two-step process.

"First, man can discourage unfit persons from breeding. Second, he can encourage breeding by those persons who are judged fit on the basis of physical and mental testing and examinations of the records of their ancestors."

Brown then commented "a small step" has been made "in the cases of childless couples where the male is sterile and artificial insemination is utilized to impregnate the female."

This prompted Brown to suggest, "It is quite likely that artificial insemination will be used with increasing frequency during the coming decades, and increasing care will be taken to insure the genetic soundness of the sperm."

He further speculated, "if civilization survives, it is likely that in the long run we will be able to slow down and perhaps even to halt the deterioration of the species."

Brown was less optimistic humans could breed for desired characteristics, writing: "We can carry out selection processes satisfactorily with sheep, cows, horses, and dogs, for in all cases we are able to examine the animals objectively and decide upon desirable characteristics."

Brown expressed doubt human beings could consider themselves equally objectively.

"We can not hope to carry out a planned evolution of our species for the simple reason that we haven't the slightest idea of what we want, and no mechanism is available that will permit us to determine what we want," he wrote.

"A 'super-race' of men or a panel of gods could examine us objectively and plan a wise pattern," he continued on page 106. "But in the absence of either, we will probably remain as we are for hundreds of thousands of years."

Still, on page 103, Brown remained concerned "it does appear that the feeble-minded, the morons, the dull and backward, and the lower-than-average persons in our society are outbreeding the superior ones at the present time. Indeed, it has been estimated that the average Intelligence Quotient of Western population as a whole is probably decreasing with each succeeding generation."

Brown recommended abortion and sterilization to control overpopulation.

Earlier, on pages 86-86, Brown had recommended controlling overpopulation by a combination of the following methods:

  1. Restriction of sexual intercourse;
  2. Abortion;
  3. Sterilization; and
  4. Fertility control, "either through the practice of coitus interruptus or through the use of chemicals or devices designed to prevent contraception.


While he lamented the Catholic Church's disapproval of contraception measures, Brown was encouraged in 1954 that the future development of a "perfect contraception" would "offer man the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of public health and at the same time to create a stable population."

Assuming contraception would not control the problem, Brown contemplated that government-mandated rules for a eugenics program utilizing artificial insemination and forced abortion could be imposed.

"Priorities for artificial insemination could be given to healthy women of high intelligence whose ancestors possessed no dangerous genetic defects," Brown wrote on page 263. "Conversely, priorities for abortions could be given to less intelligent persons of biologically unsound stock."
Despite expressing concerns that humans possessed the foresight and intelligence to apply eugenics to shape a 'super-race,' Brown appeared in the conclusion to his 1954 book to be enthusiastic about the project.

"A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates," he continued on page 263.

"Precise control of population can never be made completely compatible with the concept of a free society; on the other hand, neither can the automobile, the machine gun, or the atomic bomb," he wrote on the next page.

"Just as we have rules designed to keep us from killing one another with our automobiles, so there must be rules that keep us from killing one another with our fluctuating breeding habits and with our lack of attention to the soundness of our individual genetic stock."

WND reported Holdren, in a 1970s college textbook he co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul Ehrlich, argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change."







Last vestiges of USA sovereignty are firmly in the hands of international bodies

Was there a Bonus Paid on how fast Obama Could Destroy the USA?


Sher Zieve    




By Sher Zieve  Tuesday, December 8, 2009


While the last remaining Dem Senators hold out for their pieces of the bribes Harry Reid is offering (remember that Sen. Landrieu’s last ObamaCare vote cost We-the-People $300 Millions) for their ‘yes’ votes on ObamaCare, Obama itself will attend the now exposed as an open hoax “global warming” conference in Copenhagen to pledge US taxpayer billions and/or trillions of dollars to the ‘under-developed countries of the world’ in order to bypass the Cap and Trade battle back home. This is designed by Obama & Co to ensure that any last vestiges of USA sovereignty are firmly in the hands of international bodies.

Knowing that all of Obama’s dismantling and destruction of the United States of America was and is the major mission of his existence, I have recently wondered if he will receive personal bonus billions if he completes said destruction within a defined and extremely short period of time. How much will he make? Apparently, said billions are being taken from now-much-poorer US citizens and being given to the increasing in wealth (on the backs of the American people) ruling elite; that’s Obama & Co folks. Also being 99.9% certain that The Obama is not a citizen of the USA (he will apparently never have to produce a viable birth certificate and is using his lawyers and bought-and-paid-for judges to ensure it), and placing it in the vernacular, it will be ‘no skin off his nose’ when the USA finally and formally fails and falls into the abyss of history. His pride at America’s destruction must be almost overwhelming. But, then Obama is a narcissist and narcissists worship themselves. So, as he is a godlike figure in his own mind, perhaps nothing truly surprises him.

Beginning with the still unexplained September 2008 run on the banks (truly thinking people know from which political camp it came), moving through TARP and Obama’s first multi-billion-dollar “stimulus package” (which stimulated only Obama & Co and includes his now almost-nationalized banks), into the ObamaDestruction and nationalization of the US auto industry (only Ford is left but, rumors suggest it will soon be forced under ObamaGov), Obama’s appointment of his still-growing group of ObamaCzars (who only report to Obama and will soon direct the US Congress), Obama’s planned and implemented destruction of middle-class jobs and therefore the middle-class itself and the soon-to-be-passed ObamaCare Death Plan which will place We-the-People into perpetual bondage, Obama’s annihilation of the USA has been accomplished in less than an ObamaYear. This is and has been an amazing feat. Kudos to the tyrant! And, if he stays on point, Obama will deliver most of the balance of the USA to the UN via Copenhagen this month—possibly as early as 13 December 2009.

Suffice it to say, Obama is the best thing the global Marxist/Maoist movement has had going for it in years! The worldwide anti-human contingent must be ecstatic.

But, if the majority of us don’t actually want slavery any longer, what do we do? Have our peaceful means ceased their effectiveness? Heck, the ObamaMedia paid little attention to us when we were at least 1.7 millions strong in Washington D.C. on 12 September and they and their Marxist-Democrat masters minimized and smeared us for voicing our discontent with Washington policies at Congressional Town Hall meetings. Are peaceful means really working, folks, or are they now just ways to vent? The Political Ruling (not governing) Class no longer listens to us in any way, shape or form. They listen only to the venomously sweet whispers of those who would offer them extraordinary bribes if they sell their souls. Do you really believe there are options other than a new American Revolution? If you do, I’d love to hear them. Please let me know. In the mean time, keep your powder dry.





Copenhagen's political science

By Sarah Palin

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.
The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.
This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.
Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure.
But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen -- which actually allow them to increase their emissions -- President Obama's proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That's not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress's cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.
In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia's Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.
In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.
Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.

Updated December 09, 2009

Sensenbrenner to Tell Copenhagen: No Climate Laws Until 'Scientific Fascism' Ends


Republican lawmaker says he's going to U.N. climate conference to inform world leaders that despite any promises made by President Obama, no new laws will be passed in the U.S. until "scientific fascism" ends.


Dec. 8: Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming ranking member Rep. James Sensenbrenner speaks during a news conference in Washington. (AFP)

The ranking Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming said Tuesday he is going to attend the Copenhagen conference on climate change to inform world leaders that despite any promises made by President Obama, no new laws will be passed in the United States until the "scientific fascism" ends.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., also wrote to Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on Monday to demand that researchers who authored e-mails and documents that demonstrate climate change data were manipulated should not be allowed to participate in the latest report written by the U.N. panel.

"I call it 'scientific fascism,'" Sensenbrenner said during a press conference with fellow climate change skeptics. "The U.N. should throw a red flag. .... They relied on these scientists unjustifiably in my opinion."

Sensenbrenner wrote that "these bad actors" limited peer-reviewed studies used by the IPCC, which is leading the Copenhagen conference on climate change.

"Their behavior has caused grave damage to the public trust in climate science in general, and to the IPCC, in particular," Sensenbrenner wrote. "They should not be allowed to do so in the future. I therefore request that you and the co-chairs of each of the three IPCC working groups ensure that none of the individuals involved in these nefarious e-mail exchanges participate as contributors, reviewers, or in any other capacity in the preparation of" the next IPCC report.

Sensenbrenner is just the latest lawmaker to jump into the fray over "Climate-gate," a growing scandal over the release of thousands of e-mails written by global-warming scientists that show an effort to manipulate data and prevent publication of opposition research. More than 1,000 e-mails and 2,000 other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain were released just weeks ahead of the Copenhagen conference.

In his letter to Pachauri, Sensenbrenner noted an e-mail from Pennsylvania State University researcher Michael Mann that proposes warding other scientists off of "Climate Research" journal because it published scientific studies counter to the conclusions of the IPCC's contributors.

"The e-mails, however, demonstrate that a cabal of supposed 'cream-of-the-crop' climate scientists were indeed successful in getting editors of journals that had published contrarian views fired and that they conspired to boycott journals that did not bend to their wishes -- therefore ensuring that such views would not be adequately represented in IPCC Assessment Reports," Sensenbrenner wrote.



Copenhagen 'Circus' Turning Into Feel-Good Jamboree, Critics Say

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

By Joseph Abrams


Dec. 8: An activist looks out of a giant tree as he participates in a demonstration against the cutting of trees at the U.N. Climate Summit in Copenhagen.

Dec. 8: An activist looks out of a giant tree as he participates in a demonstration against the cutting of trees at the U.N. Climate Summit in Copenhagen.

As activists from groups as wide-ranging as the Girl Scouts and the World Council on Churches converge on the climate change conference in Copenhagen, some critics say it's turning into a "circus" sideshow, with 20,000 attendees creating an international echo chamber of climate piety.

Apart from the main proceedings, there are 254 side events, 231 exhibits and more than 200 press conferences already on the schedule — meaning there are about 700 extra events keyed up for the 12-day conference.

"These circuses get bigger and bigger," said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. "It's a big echo chamber — they're just reassuring themselves."

Some 15,000 workers from non-governmental organizations are expected to attend the conference, and scores of them will have their hands full covering urgent topics like greenhouse gases and drought. But others are running closer to the fringe:

• The delegation from Bolivia will be pushing for a Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights, which the country's President Evo Morales says "supersede the rights of human beings."

• A group called GenderCC (Women for Climate Justice) rejects using distractions like "numbers" and "target dates" to track and fight climate change, and doesn't appear very interested in the environment itself. Instead, it hopes to implement "gender-mainstreaming" and ensure that the U.N. guarantees the fullest participation of "feminist scientists" at every level.

• The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is putting on an exhibit to "explore how thoughts affect matter and how a shift in consciousness can transform current deteriorating conditions" for the environment.

• International Planned Parenthood is putting on a show about how to increase contraception in the third world to stop babies — who later become adults — from ruining the environment.

• Many others appear redundant, including nine events on climate justice and 39 on a single U.N. cause celebre called REDD — reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries — which adds up to well over a 40-hour workweek of seemingly repetitive hearings on a single topic.

These 700 events will run five or six at a time nearly non-stop in Copenhagen — a much tougher schedule than the one U.N. delegates will have to face during their negotiations (they get a 2-hour lunch break every day).

U.N. officials say it's vital that NGOs and activists attend the conference because the fate of the planet is not just in the hand of politicians — it's in the hands of citizens as well.

But oddly enough, U.N. officials gave FoxNews.com an extremely low estimate of the attendees expected, saying only about 6,000 representatives from NGOs, inter-governmental organizations and other approved U.N. organizations would be coming. An e-mail sent to those groups Nov. 25 by the U.N.'s top climate official, Yvo de Boer, shows they are bracing for a crush of at least 14,000 such delegates.

Some critics say that vast attendance is to be expected at the world's premiere conference on climate change, where active groups can meet and exchange information — but they say it still looks like "overkill."

"They've always been a big political show, but they've gone from being that to being far more of a 'We all care' jamboree," said Roger Bate, the Legatum Fellow in Global Prosperity at the American Enterprise Institute.


Updated December 08, 2009

Surprise, Surprise, Many Scientists Disagree On Global Warming

By John Lott

 - FOXNews.com

There is hardly unanimity among scientists about global warming or mankind's role in producing it. But you wouldn't know it if you just listened to the Obama administration.As the Climate-gate controversy continues to grow, amid charges of hiding and manipulating data, and suppressing research by academics who challenge global warming, there is one oft-repeated defense: other independent data-sets all reach the same conclusions. "I think everybody is clear on the science. I think scientists are clear on the science ... I think that this notion that there's some debate . . . on the science is kind of silly," said President Obama's Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, when asked about the president's response to the controversy on Monday. Despite the scandal, Britain's Met, the UK’s National Weather Service, claims: "we remain completely confident in the data. The three independent data sets show a strong correlation is highlighting an increase in global temperatures."

But things are not so clear. It is not just the University of East Anglia data that is at question. There are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The sheer number of scientists rallying against a major intervention to stop carbon dioxide is remarkable. In a petition, more than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty. Thus, there is hardly the unanimity among scientists about global warming or mankind's role in producing it. But even for the sake of argument, assuming that there is significant man-made global warming, many academics argue that higher temperatures are actually good. Higher temperatures increase the amount of land to grow food, increase biological diversity, and improve people's health. Increased carbon dioxide also promotes plant growth.

Let's take the issue of data. The three most relied-on data series used by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report came from the University of East Anglia, NASA, and the British Met Office. As noted in my previous piece for the Fox Forum,   the problem of secretiveness is hardly limited to the University of East Anglia. NASA also refuses to give out its data. NASA further refuses to explain mysterious changes in whether the warmest years were in the 1930s or this past decade. The British Met office, too, has been unable to release its data and just announced its plans to begin a three-year investigation of its data since all of its land temperatures data were obtained from the University of East Anglia (ocean temperatures were collected separately), though there are signs that things might be speeded up.

Neither the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia nor the British Met are able to provide their raw data to other research scientists because of the confidentiality agreements that Professor Phil Jones at CRU entered into. Unfortunately, Jones did not keep records of those agreements and, according to the British Met, can neither identify the countries with the confidentiality agreements nor provide the agreements. Earlier this year the British Met wrote the following to Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:

"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."


A press spokesman for the British Met, John Hammond, confirmed this statement in a telephone conversation on Monday to FoxNews.com. But the claimed confidentiality restrictions have hardly been followed consistently. When asked why the University of East Anglia was allowed to release the data to the Met but not to other academics, Mr. Hammond e-mailed back: "This is a question for the UEA." Unfortunately, however, neither the University of East Anglia nor anyone associated with the CRU was willing to answer any questions about the climate research conducted at the university.

But why would countries want confidentiality agreements on decades old data that they are providing? "Climate data continues to have value so long as it is commercially confidential," Mr. Hammond says. But when pushed for evidence that this was in fact the concerns that countries had raised, Mr. Hammond said: "Although I do not have evidence to hand at the moment, some nations, especially in Africa for example, believe that the information does have commercial value." Earlier, in July, the Met had raised a different issue -- that scientists in other countries would be less willing to share their scientific research if the Met could be expected to pass on the data to others.

However, professional meterologists are unimpressed by the claimed reasons for confidentiality. "Research data used as the basis for scientific research needs to be disclosed if other scientists are to be able to verify the work of others," Mike Steinberg, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, told FoxNews.com. In addition, while the data access may be restricted in some countries because they sell data and forecasts, that doesn't explain why the data isn't released for all other countries.

It is not just the University of East Anglia that has been accused of massaging the data (what they called creating "value added" data). Recently, New Zealand has also had its temperature series from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) challenged. Still the NIWA continues to insist that the "Warming over New Zealand through the past is unequivocal." Indeed, the institute claims that the New Zealand warming trend was 50 percent higher than the global average. But the difference in graphs between what NIWA produced after massaging the data and what the original raw data showed was truly remarkable and can be seen here. As the Climate Science Coalition of New Zealand charged: "The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below." Similar concerns have also been raised about Australian temperature data.

Global warming advocates may believe that if they just keep shouting that everyone agrees with them, they will be able to enact their far-reaching regulations before everyone catches on. With President Obama's -- and the Democrats' -- fondness for more spending and increased regulations, our hope may have to rest with India and China to finally bring the Copenhagen conference to its senses.


My Al Gore science experiment

With the nations gathering in Copenhagen for their Climate Change Conference, I'm going to perform a little science experiment.


It's based on what Al Gore said in his "Inconvenient Truth": The polar ice caps will melt sending 20-plus-foot flood waves into coastal cities worldwide. Something Grant Jeffrey, author of "Shadow Government," informed me on last week's Faith2Action program that apparently even Al Gore himself doesn't believe:


"Did you know that he bought a property in San Francisco near Fisherman's Wharf, only four feet from the ocean? I would say that if he believed that the seas were going to rise 23 feet, he would not have invested a great deal of money in such a property."


Good point.


As I write this, I have a glass of water with ice filled to the very top sitting on my desk. Actually, it's sitting on a paper towel on my desk – to catch (and record) any overflow. If Al Gore is right, when the ice in the glass melts, there will be an overflow of water all over my desk – spilling onto my keyboard and preventing me from finishing this column. Stay tuned for the results.


The problem with Gore's theory, as explained by another guest on my F2A program yesterday, is something called the "Archimedes Principle: when a less dense solid like ice melts in a liquid like water, the liquid level drops."


Climate change? Sure – it happens four times a year. Get the bumper sticker that expresses your opinion about science hoax


Another experiment (I've already tried) is an unopened can of Pepsi in the freezer. See how long before it explodes and you have to clean your entire freezer. It would appear that Pepsi expands when it freezes, as well, not contracts.


By the way, Jeffrey also revealed another fun fact: "Did you know that Al Gore is listed by the Tennessee Environmental Protection Agency as the No. 1 polluter in the state of Tennessee? He, on his property, receives royalties of about $100,000 a year from a tin mine on his property which is cited by the Tennessee Environmental Protection Agency as the No. 1 polluter, putting tremendous toxic poisons into the water and streams of Tennessee."


Interesting. And the 1,200 limos and 140 private planes for the Copenhagen Conference (and two weeks of nothing but hot air) will do even more damage to the environment.


As information comes out from the e-mails leaked from various climate scientists, it is becoming obvious that they were literally "cooking the data" to push their theories of global warming. Internal e-mails exposed an attempted "trick" that would "hide the decline" of global temperatures and instructions to delete contrary data.


They should all be thoroughly investigated, but most of the media are doing little if anything to cover it.


Update: So far the ice has melted by half, and still no overflow.


Now, carbon dioxide, CO2, is being named as a "pollutant." Presumably, we will be taxed not only for driving to work and heating our homes, but for breathing, as well. But why wait for the Senate to pass a "control and tax" bill? Now, as Glenn Beck reports, the EPA and Cass Sunstein, the (regulatory czar) are stepping in to regulate CO2 – without congressional approval.


Meanwhile, the ice in my science experiment is nearly melted, and still no water overflow! Stay tuned, I'll reveal the results at the end of this column (provided my keyboard doesn't get flooded).


In an October speech in Minnesota, British Lord Christopher Monckton said that "unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever."


My friend Jerry Newcombe interviewed Lord Monckton on last Thursday and Friday's "Truths that Transform" where he said three key points I'll summarize for you:


1. People are already starving to death in Third World nations because of the scare about global warming. Not any global warming itself, but the scare about it. Many saw the price of food double recently, making it unaffordable to the poorest of the poor. This is due in part to the fact fields and farmland in the U.S. and elsewhere have been converted from producing food to biofuels, such as ethanol. One German official has called this "a crime against humanity."


2. Monckton says that to decrease world temperature by one degree Fahrenheit, we would have to stop all production and use of carbon-producing energy for a period of 200 years worldwide. We would basically have to return to the Stone Age. But, even worse, no one could even light a fire to warm the cave they are living in.


3. Cows release more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the factories, vehicles, etc. (all human activity) worldwide.


After you've called Obama and your U.S. senators, the most effective way to stop this could be through calling on U.S. companies to withdraw their support from Copenhagen, including Coca-Cola, Google, Time Warner, Yahoo and the Wall Street Journal – I think I may cancel my subscription.


And the results are in! All of the ice has melted in my glass and there was not a massive spill-over! Maybe Al Gore's coastal property isn't such a bad buy, after all. But the Copenhagen Climate Con is. E-mails, facts and science add up to an inconvenient truth for the Copenhagen Climate Conference and the global governance that comes with it.


Obviously, this experiment only relates to ice that is floating in the water. As some physics experts correctly point out, if any icecaps on land melt, such as on Greenland and Antarctica, there would be an increase in sea levels.


However, while we hear much about places where glaciers are contracting, we hear little if anything about the many places where they are expanding.


Here's a list of glaciers and icecaps that are expanding.


The Heartland Institute has a number of articles about both Greenland and Antarctica that present a much different picture from what the media commonly present.



All we have to do now is put our Faith2Action :




1. Call the White House at 202-456-1414 and your two senators at 202-224-3121 and state your opposition to the Copenhagen treaty.


2. A number of companies and organizations consider themselves to be "Friends of Hopenhagen." They need to be urged to withdraw their support. Here are phone numbers for some of the larger ones:


Coca-Cola 404-676-2121
Clear Channel 210-822-2828
Getty Images 312-344-4500
Google 650-253-0000
Major League Baseball 866-800-1275
SAP 800-872-1727
Siemens 800-743-6367
Time Warner 212-484-8000
Wall Street
Journal 212-416-2000
Yahoo Inc. 408-349-3300


3. Add your name to an online national petition against the treaty.


4. Let others know through conversations, phone calls, and letters to the editor of the dangers to our sovereignty and economy.


5. Pray that God will show our leaders, including President Obama, that this treaty should be firmly rejected.


Janet Porter is president of Faith2Action*: turning people of faith into people of action to WIN the cultural war TOGETHER for life, liberty and the family. Author of "The Criminalization of Christianity," she hosts a daily radio program from 2-3 p.m. Eastern and a daily radio commentary heard in 100 markets and at www.f2a.org.

* Title and affiliation for identification purposes only.


Global Warming Is Too Big to Fail

As the Copenhagen airport welcomes 140 extra private jets during the climate change summit, everyone else in the eye of the global warming storm is circling their solar-powered wagons.


Predictably, The New York Times says those Climate-gate e-mails reveal nothing more than academic pettiness. Meanwhile, the EPA claims that greenhouse gases are endangering people's health, making way for more regulation. And, no surprise, Robert Gibbs dismisses Climate-gate as a big nothing.


But sadly, what were seeing with Climate-gate is not an anomaly, but the opposite (a "pronomaly," if you will). Fact is, those e-mails were all about suppression and suppression has been part of global warming since day one.


Let's start with CO2. Activists tell us that man-caused CO2 is creating global warming. However, only 3 percent of CO2 comes from people. The rest comes from oceans, animals and Ryan Seacrest.


So how come you don't hear about that? Because, you can't say that man is destroying the planet, once you realize man's impact is nil.


Big Green also likes to talk up consensus. Well then, what about the Gallup poll of climate scientists, showing that nearly 50 percent had rejected man-caused global warming. Or, how about the first assessment report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? They said recent temperature changes could be due to nature. However, according to "Scared to Death" authors Christopher Booker and Richard North, the summarizers ignored that and predicted warming instead. That's consensus through suppression.


nd then there's Al Gore. When one of his beloved professors published a paper saying global warming was uncertain, Gore questioned his sanity. He also pressured newsman Ted Koppel into linking nefarious forces to anti-global warming factions.


And, of course, there's Gore's movie, a loon-fest beyond laughable. Like his poetry — here's some, from his new book, "Our Choice":


"One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears.
In midnight sun,
Vapors rise as Fever settles on an acid sea."


Vanity Fair calls it "equal parts beautiful, evocative and disturbing."


I call it equal parts "barf, barf and barf."


Now the EPA declares global warming a health issue. I guess if you can't guilt people with drowning polar bears then you scare them with disease.


But the biggest fraud: The marginalization of anyone who stands in the way of Big Globe. Question the hysteria and you're a quack. Never before has a defense of science been so ridiculed all in the name of science.


The fact is, for the media and our administration: Global warming is too big to fail, because if you kill global warming, you kill their power and if you do that then where in the world will they be?


Rediscovering global cooling, probably.


Fierce snowstorm gains strength after hitting West...


Millions to be Impacted by Unfolding Blizzard...





Defenseless enviro-thugs go on offense
David Limbaugh rips activists' attempt at 'launching the reverse thrusters on modernity'

David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh

Defenseless enviro-thugs go on offense

Posted: December 08, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 


At a time when leftist enviro-tyrants ought to be hanging their heads in shame, they are, instead, taking the
offensive. They are not only dismissing the staggering Climategate scandal as insignificant but also
redoubling and accelerating their push to enslave the world with their progress-swallowing treaties, laws
and regulations.

It's the same old leftist playbook: Approach every desired major policy change as a crisis, and demand
immediate action. If the public begins to wise up to the distortions and exaggerations, elevate the threat
warning from dire to urgent.

We saw it in our domestic politics in the United States when President Barack Obama's leftist Democrats
manufactured a simulated crisis over health insurance, deliberately overstating by multiples the number of
uninsured as a predicate to Obama's demand that a comprehensive bill had to be passed before Congress'
August recess.

Shortly thereafter, it came to light that Democrats had also grossly manipulated the projected costs of
their proposals and flagrantly lied about such issues as rationing and government-funded abortions. All the
while, these "progressives" concealed from the public the underlying facts and data and their ultimate
aims, obliterating Obama's pledge for greater transparency in government.

Like-minded global and American leftists know the jig is almost up on the fabricated global warming
"consensus," as the public is catching on to their deception (reflected by fresh polling data), and the
Climategate scandal has lifted the veil on the leftist scientific community's global conspiratorial
corruption. They tell us to pay no attention to the Climategate behind the curtain and to join with them in
launching the reverse thrusters on modernity and progress in deference to the global-warming hoax.

Meanwhile, the Obama-leftist Environmental Protection Agency has hedged its bets (in the event
Copenhagen is a bust) by declaring the air we exhale an environmental hazard.

"The evidence is now overwhelming," said Rajendra Pachauri, head of the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, unfazed by the Climategate scandal and what it says about the integrity and
methods of the alarmist scientists. Instead of being humbled by the scandal, Pachauri is attacking those
who committed "illegal acts" in "stealing" e-mails documenting the climate fraud.

The alarmists tell us that the incriminating e-mails do nothing to discredit global-warming science. Well, if
that is true, why did these top-gun environmentalists believe it necessary to cheat and lie? If the science is
so clear, why did they have to cherry-pick their data and rig the evidence? Why did they have to "hide the
decline" of the "real temps"? Why did someone destroy the underlying temperature records that could
either support or undermine their catastrophic conclusions?

Is this the way people of good faith behave? Because climate science, like other sciences, is an esoteric
field of study, the public places its trust in the so-called experts in the field. But now these experts have
shown their true colors as political hacks.

Although these leftists are trying to tell us that the leaked e-mails are peripheral at best (the U.S. envoy to
the Copenhagen summit cavalierly dismissed them as a "small blip"), the reality is that they expose the
manipulation of key data on which the entire body of global warming is predicated. We're talking complete
lies, built on distortions, founded on falsehoods, facilitated by cynically dishonest methodologies.

As British columnist Christopher Booker says: "What has become arguably the most influential set of
evidence used to support the case that the world faces unprecedented global warming, developed, copied
and promoted hundreds of times, has now been as definitively kicked into touch as was (Michael) Mann's
'hockey stick' before it. Yet it is on a blind acceptance of this kind of evidence that 16,500 politicians,
officials, scientists and environmental activists will be gathering in Copenhagen to discuss measures
which ... would ... utterly (transform) the world economy."

Perhaps the culpability of many rank-and-file leftists should be understood in light of their mind-numbed
credulity over the alarmists' claims and the draconian solutions they offer to avert their mythical
Armageddon. These leftist sheep seem engaged in a chimerical search for significance apart from God,
whose existence their worldview rejects but for whom their hearts cry out in a self-muted cacophony.
But the leaders of the movement are not so innocent. Their sinister intent is to fundamentally restructure
the global economy and its allocation of resources, with an eye, ultimately, to one-world government – or
at least ceding control of major aspects of our lives to international bodies.

Am I sensationalizing? The Associated Press reports that Copenhagen envisions a deal to transfer hundreds
of billions of dollars from rich to poor countries every year over decades to help them adapt to climate
change. And read Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen's expectations for Copenhagen: "The
deal that we invite leaders to sign up on will ... (affect) all aspects of society, just as the changing climate

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Any hope or change from Copenhagen?
Dr. Tim Ball: No coincidence EPA announcement on opening day of climate summit

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Bolton slams U.N.'s 'adverse press' crackdown
Global organization creating 'credibility problem' with decisions







Socialists Demand Trillions in “Climate Debt”


AIM Column  |  By Cliff Kincaid  |  December 7, 2009


Proposals for “climate change financing” include a Comprehensive World Climate Change Fund, into which payments could be made, and a global carbon tax.


You don't need to attend the United Nations climate change conference to know what's really going on.

Ignoring the fallacies behind the "science" of man-made global warming, a new U.N. report on "climate justice" says the U.S. and other countries owe $24 trillion in "climate debt" to the rest of the world. The report, "Climate Justice for a Changing Planet," argues that the United States is "historically the largest global emitter" of greenhouse gas emissions and therefore has the biggest "debt" to pay.

But another U.N. report puts the figure at $45 trillion.

President Obama seems prepared to accept this bogus claim by attending the United Nations conference on December 18.

The U.S. failure to pay, argues leftist Canadian writer Naomi Klein, has already produced "climate rage" and a "global movement for climate justice" led by Bolivia's socialist President Evo Morales. The implication is that if the U.S. doesn't pay up, protests and even violence could break out.

In a statement, the Morales regime declared that "What we call for is full payment of the debt owed to us by developed countries for threatening the integrity of the Earth's climate system, for over-consuming a shared resource that belongs fairly and equally to all people, and for maintaining lifestyles that continue to threaten the lives and livelihoods of the poor majority of the planet's population."

In other words, Americans are supposed to feel guilty over having a successful industrial economy. It is a system that has produced more wealth for more people than any in human history.

A detailed proposal from Bolivia says "a wealthy minority," presumably in the U.S. and other "rich" nations, "has already over
consumed a considerable amount of environmental space," thus "denying it to the poorer majority who needs it in the course of their development."

Naomi Klein describes the proposed payments as "reparations." 

But as startling as the figure of $24 trillion sounds, a separate report from the U.N. Environmental Program says the cost could be as high as $45 trillion. It is estimated that "a package to address climate change and energy development needs at the global level may require US $45 trillion up to 2025," it says.

The March 2009 "Global Green New Deal" report says that the global financial crisis is an opportunity to usher in a new international socialist order. "The rules of financial architecture and of global environmental governance are being simultaneously re-written in 2009," the report explains. "We believe that there is a unique historical opportunity now to create the basis of a new Green Economy that is able to allocate natural capital and financial capital in a far more effective and efficient manner into the foreseeable future. We must not miss this chance to fundamentally shift the trajectory of human civilization."

The author of this report was Professor Edward B. Barbier of the University of Wyoming. His "Global Green New Deal" report was prepared in consultation with the U.S. Presidential Climate Action Project, a little-known entity launched by the University of Colorado whose advisory board includes ousted White House communist "Green Jobs Czar" Van Jones. World Net Daily highlighted Jones' role in the group in a November 30 story by Aaron Klein.

Co-authored by Barbara Adams and Gretchen Luchsinger, the most recent United Nations report on "climate justice" says "because the world's richest countries have contributed most to the problem, they have a greater obligation to take action and to do so more quickly." Paying a "climate debt" is the way to make sure that "extreme imbalances in development are evened out."

"China now produces the largest amount of overall national emissions, topping the United States," the report says. "But this figure must be qualified by the fact that China's population is four times as large as that of the United States, making its per capita emissions rate roughly 75 percent less."

Hence, the U.S. is still the chief culprit and should pay the most.

The report was launched in conjunction with the U.N. climate change conference now taking place in Copenhagen and is designed for the consideration of policy makers and non-governmental organizations. It is being distributed by the United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service.

"Given the escalating pace of global warming," the report argues, the world "now has to act with far greater urgency..." But change is possible only with "major economic and political rearrangements around the core principles of equity and sustainable development."

These are euphemisms for destroying private property rights and the free enterprise system and creating a global socialist superstate

Under a heading about the need to "transform the systems and institutions that have created climate change," the authors say that "tinkering around the edges" will not suffice and that "Governance and development models should be built around notions of justice and equity, with the objective of working for the planet and people as a whole, and evening out imbalances that are not sustainable. It is not enough to talk about low-carbon pathways through technology, for example, without also rethinking current models of production, global trade and consumption patterns."

Proposals for "climate change financing" include a Comprehensive World Climate Change Fund, into which payments could be made, and a global carbon tax.

The ATTAC movement says, "Change the system, not the climate!" ATTAC, which stands for the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens, favors global taxes on currency transactions.

A more detailed article on "climate justice" explains that "It isn't simply a matter of asking the rich world to pay for the devastation climate change is causing in the developing world. As a report recently launched by World Development Movement and Jubilee Debt Campaign points out, 'climate debt' questions a global free market system which has pushed many developing countries into high carbon pathways that they now need to find a way out of."

This is about as clear as it gets--free markets will give way to a worldwide socialist state, created under the guise of solving a climate crisis that does not really exist.

The authors, Nick Dearden and Tim Jones, attempt to throw cold water on Lord Christopher Monckton's contention that this amounts to a blueprint for "world communist government." However, they acknowledge that the proposal does imply "fundamental changes in the global economy" and the "radical redistribution of the world's resources."

Do you think we can count on the major media attending the conference to report on the real agenda behind the event?
Fierce snowstorm gains strength after hitting West...


Millions to be Impacted by Unfolding Blizzard...


Founding Father’s Checks and Balances Bypassed on a Grand Scale

December 7,  2009; Another Day of Infamy?


Dr. Tim Ball  



By Dr. Tim Ball  Tuesday, December 8, 2009


On December 7, 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and President Roosevelt called it a Day in Infamy. On Monday December 7, 2009 a world conference and a bureaucratic action is another day of infamy. It’s loss of freedom day. Two travesties occurred that completely undermine freedom, market economies, and progress. One was the opening of The Conference of the Parties (COP) version 15 in Copenhagen in an attempt to perpetuate the Kyoto Accord. The other was the implementation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of direct control over anyone who produces CO2 at a level they consider harmful. Both actions are based on the totally false and falsified claim that CO2 is causing global warming or climate change.

Kyoto Renewal at Copenhagen

Kyoto was designed to make developed nations pay for the sin of development achieved by raising atmospheric CO2 levels and causing destructive climate change. CO2 is only causing warming and climate change in the completely doctored computer models of the IPCC. These models were controlled by the people exposed in the leaked files from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

Actually, Kyoto was a purely socialistic redistribution of wealth. In reality it won’t work because you don’t pull one nation up by pulling another down. It was also a plan to undermine the success and role of the US in world affairs. Significantly Obama has made no public comment about the leaked information that clearly shows the basis of Kyoto contained in the reports of the IPCC was totally falsified.

There is a deep-seated anti-Americanism in the world exploited by Obama. He blames George W Bush, but I know from attitudes I’ve observed in Canada and England it was deeply entrenched before he came to power. Everyone wants success, but not in other people. The US might have done some things better, but no superpower has functioned with more success and more compassion for other nations. My comment to anyone who denigrates the US is, be grateful; imagine what happens when China is the superpower. If you can’t imagine ask Tibetans. If Kyoto is perpetuated through Copenhagen it will give China ascendancy at the expense of the US and other western developed nations. The combination of weakening industries and economies and then having to pay for sins, will dramatically weaken developed economies and enhance China’s control. It is similar to the dilemma Germany faced with the Treaty of Versailles after World War I. It said you must pay reparations for the damage you did in the War, however you cannot develop your industry. 

The Enemy Within

There’s nothing funny about what is happening at the EPA, however, the British TV comedy series “Yes, Minister,” Margaret Thatcher’s favorite program is telling. It involves a senior bureaucrat who totally controls his Minister and achieves his personal goals by exploiting the established procedures and practices. This is a real threat to the strength of any nation because it is the enemy within. Bureaucracies are littered with and often controlled by Environmental Studies graduates with little or no science training. They provide the data politicians use and they dominate the IPCC, especially the Summary for Policymakers.

Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator referred to controlling pollution in her public statement introducing the policy.  CO2 is not a pollutant and for the Administrator to call it such is a measure of ignorance of the science. As a chemical engineer Jackson should be no better than most. But this is not about science it is about control, especially of industry. The Obama administration has bypassed Congress using a ruling from the Supreme Court. The Court also showed scientific ignorance by ruling it was a pollutant. So it is not about science or justice but total and absolute control. Obama could not put his coal state Democrats in difficulty by following through on his pre-election threat reported in the January 17, 2008 San Francisco Chronicle.  He said, “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.” He didn’t have to face the Democrats or the people. He used the bureaucracy to do the dirty work for him. As Charles Peguy said; “Tyranny is always better organized than freedom.”



Please help the world -- COP15 opening film

Convenient lies to frighten children


Bob Parks    



 By Bob Parks  Tuesday, December 8, 2009


Please help the world—COP15 opening film
Scaring the world, one kid at a time




What motivates Malthusian social liberals in their zany pseudo-scientific endeavors

Global Warming Theory Not New, But Simple Reborn Malthusianism


Kelly O'Connell  



By Kelly O'Connell  Tuesday, December 8, 2009


The recently uncovered British hoax regarding Global Warming should shock no one. This theory’s source was never analytic science, but modern politics fused to old superstitions. Further, there is now a societal preset belief assuming warnings of such dramatic natural disasters are inevitable. The origin of belief in earth’s imminent destruction comes from 18th century economist Thomas Malthus.

To summarize, the Global Warming myth has all the parts of a true fairytale: an evil enemy: capitalism; a hero: savior scientists; and potential ruin for readers who don’t heed the story’s moral: Decrease selfish carbon-belching commerce to save mother earth, or we are all doomed.

Thomas Malthus- radical measures to reduce populations

Malthus wrote in “Essay on the Principle of Population,” that unless 18th century birth rates fell, earth’s population was destined to starve, as too many people sought increasingly scarce stocks of food. He called for radical measures to reduce populations to keep the rest of humans alive from the coming global famine. Such a call to radicalism is seen in the title of his 11th chapter, “Conjecture Concerning the Future Extinction of the Passions Between the Sexes.” Yet, as time passed, instead of starvation, food production technology improved so that as the population increased, hunger decreased.

Still, Malthus became a highly influential thinker. His ideas were simple and clear, promising an inevitable outcome and an extremely scary conclusion. Even as Malthus’ ideas were scientifically disproved, his romantic apocalyptic notions were preserved. His basic outline, offered a coming cataclysm threatening earth, where mankind must heroically battle all alone, against great odds to survive, became an essential humanist fable. To this day, Malthusian arguments are put-forward to justify all kinds of dangerous, population-curbing public policies, in the name of “saving the planet.”

Charles Darwin- eugenics and the culling of inferior human stock

Malthus’ theories profoundly influenced the young Charles Darwin. He wrote that his inspiration for The Origin of Species was “the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.” That Darwin’s ideas later were used by scientists to justify eugenics and the culling of inferior human stock, cannot be surprising. Other prominent social liberal thinkers influenced by Malthus included Karl Marx, who used it to argue the forced collectivization of all property, including food, in the name of saving the race.

And so Malthus’ doctrine of a perpetually overpopulated earth became an essential belief of humanism. These ideas were eventually even introduced into elementary educational curriculum. Such school games as the “Lifeboat” became human survival training. Here youngsters were encouraged to ponder saving a crowded mid-ocean lifeboat, with diminishing food and water. This forced children to play God by deciding which person should be pushed overboard to save the rest. Of course, the first to go were the old, young, sick, retarded, deformed, etc. The logic of such thinking creates the entire philosophy for international “Family Planning,” ie abortion, sterilizations, eugenics and euthanasia. China’s “One Child Policy,” (and the resultant hundreds of millions of aborted babies) is a direct result of Malthus’ theories.

Global Warming movement resembles ancient paganism

The Global Warming myth is just one of many human-caused doomsday scenarios. Consider some of the other apocalyptic scenes derived from the sins of humanity: Peak oil; holes in the ozone; scarcity of natural commodities; acid rain; over-urbanization; atom smashers; biological warfare; nuclear power leaks and nuclear winter; loss of seed and animal diversity; global freeze; nuclear war and radioactive contamination; loss of farmland; Y2K; famine; water pollution; deforestation; scientifically gene-spliced mutations; loss of topsoil; polluted oceans; hormone poisoning; etc. While any of these problems presents trouble, they have all been offered as inevitable death-of-mankind theories.

In some basic sense, the Global Warming movement resembles ancient paganism in that it presents a universe of great uncertainty and danger. The essential theory of ancient classical religion was the notion that mankind was caught in a volatile world under the oversight of capricious, and mysterious gods. For example, in ancient Rome the foundational public policy was Pax Deorum, ie the Peace of the Gods. At all costs, peace was to be maintained with the pantheon of gods, or it was feared – all hell would break loose. All the religious displays and holy acts were meant to address this problem. Humans were on notice that any natural catastrophe, such as lightning hitting the Temple of Zeus, was a sign the gods were upset. And it was only a human response that could answer such a frightening development. Therefore, some rite or sacrifice was always necessary to appease the god’s fickle anger.

Moving to the modern world, Global Warming is presented as a cosmic morality play where mankind has taken advantage of paradise by wasting much of what was given us for selfish gains. Now, we must repent of our corporate sins by using less energy and resources so the globe can come back into order and harmony be reestablished. This work is a fundamentally atheistic undertaking where the human race, by our own guile and strategy, diagnose and cure the earth’s ills before Nature is forced to deliver the coup de grace, and cook us to a crisp.

Note how this pagan model inverts the Judeo-Christian world-view, in how it rejects the biblical Dominion Mandate of mankind of being called to be fruitful and multiply, in Genesis 1:28. In fact, this humanistic doctrine asserts that if people followed Yahweh’s commands in Genesis, earth and mankind will be not be established as promised, but destroyed.

Karl Marx - capitalism must be eliminated

On another level, one cannot avoid how this world-view also represents Karl Marx’s beliefs in its critique of capitalism and unsympathetic portrayal of selfish consumerism. Coincidentally, the outcome of the “Carbon Credits” game is also socialistic. When wealthy countries are forced to buy from the poorer their Carbon Credits in the Cap and Trade legislation, what results is fundamentally a global socialist wealth redistribution scheme. Marxism claims capitalism must be eliminated before humanity can be freed to form a communist utopia. And, like Global Warming, Marxism sees an inherent danger and evil in all capitalistic ventures. Also, capitalism breaks the body and soul of mankind, whereas Global Warming similarly destroys the earth, endangering all future generations.

As Marxist liberals often work in academia, the Arts, the mainstream media and publishing, these false, yet deeply felt beliefs are now bred in the bone in countless Western youth. This false world-view presents an ever present plague, ready to leap back to life, despite being heroically beaten back before. This is because these notions fulfill a felt sense of cosmic truth that is almost impossible to refute as it lies beyond logic in the realm of faith. So, every single act of Malthusian propaganda is accepted as a result of confirmation bias.

Conclusion- What motivates Malthusian social liberals in their zany pseudo-scientific endeavors

What difference does it make if Malthus’ ideas are accepted? Isn’t the earth overpopulated anyway; and won’t following these concepts simply help us survive? In a word, no. Any public policy based upon half-truths and lies is dangerous, since it missuses irreplaceable resources. For example, Obama promised to bankrupt the coal industry, which produces half of America’s electrical power. Ergo, would this not be unacceptable if Global Warming is false? Consider that a certain percent of the world’s population starves with each penny in cost fuel rises, as many still live on the edge of starvation. Fuel costs must increase if coal is replaced by another fuel source. Therefore, if coal is replaced by other fuels, many innocents will die, globally. But, conversely, imagine if the US Government allowed oil exploration and drilling anywhere in America?!! We might easily discover energy finds that dwarf all the rest of US supplies, combined. This would also help all the poor around the world, indirectly.

Beyond Global Warming, Westerners must ponder the larger picture of what motivates Malthusian social liberals in their zany pseudo-scientific endeavors. America is faced with a large body of humanists whom are permanently nervous about their security, like the adherents of the aforementioned long-lost classical religion. Since this group is dislocated from reality, we must stay vigilant and oppose every tentacle of this dislocated modernized paganism. The very fate of the human race may well depend upon brave traditionalists keeping their wits and pushing back against confused and highly-agitated progressives trying to commandeer the controls of government to “save” the planet.




Saudi Arabia calls for 'climategate' investigation...




The EPA’s war on carbon

December 7, 2009 11:28 AM by Michelle Malkin


The EPA’s war on carbon

By Michelle Malkin  •  December 7, 2009 11:28 AM


Eco-czars of the Obama administration, activate!

Form of…a corrupted “scientific” finding on greenhouse gas “public endangerment.”

Timed for maximum impact on the Copenhagen global warming treaty talks, the Obama EPA is set to announce that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, paving the way for the green bureaucrats to radically regulate emissions.

Keeping an open mind about dissenting researchers? Listening to input from the Hill?


Screw them:


The Obama administration is pressing for a new law that would establish a cap-and-trade system to curb emissions from power plants and scores of other sources. But the administration has also warned that it plans to move ahead with EPA rules absent a final bill. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is urging GOP colleagues to back an emissions bill in part because Congress, not EPA, should decide the contours of a national emissions program. The so-called endangerment finding stems from a major 2007 Supreme Court decision that enables EPA to limit the emissions if it finds that greenhouses gases are indeed a danger. The agency issued a preliminary finding in April.

The EPA announcement could also give U.S. negotiators more leverage at the international climate talks in Copenhagen that begin today, demonstrating domestic action even though Congress has not completed a final bill to curb emissions.


Although EPA chief Lisa Jackson will make the announcement this afternoon, the edict has global warming zealot and Obama energy czar/chief ClimateGate denier Carol “Put nothing in writing…ever” Browner’s fingerprints all over it.

Take a moment to refresh your memories on how Obama’s enviro-ministers have dealt with inside watchdogs on the endangerment issue. It’s the same way the ClimateGate cabal has dealt with its critics: By attempting to squash them. From my June 26 column:

The free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington (where I served as a journalism fellow in 1995) obtained a set of internal e-mails exposing Team Obama’s willful and reckless disregard for data that undermine the illusion of “consensus.” In March, Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, asked agency officials to distribute his analysis on the health effects of greenhouse gases. EPA has proposed a public health “endangerment finding” covering CO2 and five other gases that would trigger costly, extensive new regulations of motor vehicles. The open comment period on the ruling ended this week. But Carlin’s study didn’t fit the blame-human-activity narrative, so it didn’t make the cut.

On March 12, Carlin’s director, Al McGartland, forbade him from having “any direct communication” with anyone outside his office about his study. “There should be no meetings, emails, written statements, phone calls, etc.” On March 16, Carlin urged his superiors to forward his work to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which runs the agency’s climate change program. A day later, McGartland dismissed Carlin and showed his true, politicized colors:

“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

Contrary comments, in other words, would interfere with the “process” of ramming the EPA’s endangerment finding through. Truth-in-science took a backseat to protecting eco-bureaucrats from “a very negative impact.”

In another follow-up e-mail, McGartland warned Carlin to drop the subject altogether: “With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.”

But, of course, the e-mails show that EPA had already predetermined what it was going to do – “move forward on endangerment.” Which underscores the fact that the open public comment period was all for show. In her message to the public about the radical greenhouse gas rules, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson requested “comment on the data on which the proposed findings are based, the methodology used in obtaining and analyzing the data, and the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed findings.” Ms. Jackson, meet Mr. Carlin.

The EPA now justifies the suppression of the study because economist Carlin (a 35-year veteran of the agency who also holds a B.S. in physics) “is an individual who is not a scientist.” Neither is Al Gore. Nor is environmental czar Carol Browner. Nor is cap-and-trade shepherd Nancy Pelosi. Carlin’s analysis incorporated peer-reviewed studies and, as he informed his colleagues, “significant new research” related to the proposed endangerment finding. According to those who have seen his study, it spotlights EPA’s reliance on out-of-date research, uncritical recycling of United Nations data, and omission of new developments, including a continued decline in global temperatures and a new consensus that future hurricane behavior won’t be different than in the past.

But the message from his superiors was clear: La-la-la, we can’t hear you.
In April, President Obama declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” Another day, another broken promise.


Philip Klein has more on the EPA bureaucrats expanding their power under the guise of saving the planet:


Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, made these intentions clear in her opening memo to employees in January 2009. “EPA will stand ready to help Congress craft strong, science-based climate legislation that fulfills the vision of the President,” she wrote, adding, “As Congress does its work, we will move ahead to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision recognizing EPA’s obligation to address climate change under the Clean Air Act.”

The Supreme Court decision Jackson referred to is Massachusetts v. EPA. Decided in 2007, the Court ruled that, pending a finding of “endangerment,” the EPA was required to regulate greenhouse gases in new vehicles. Obama appointed the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the suit, Lisa Heinzerling, to be senior policy counsel on climate change at the EPA, a position that does not require confirmation. In her speeches and academic writings, Heinzerling has advocated an unabashedly activist role for the federal government in regulating carbon emissions….

Heinzerling has gone so far as to argue that since global warming kills people, a failure to address it is tantamount to somebody not acting on prior knowledge that a homicide is going to take place.

“Knowledge that death and suffering will result from our actions leads uncontroversially to a moral obligation to change our behavior,” Heinzerling wrote in a 2008 article for the Georgetown Law Journal. “In the United States, knowing killing is condemned in the criminal laws of all 50 states, in modern regulatory laws at the federal level, and in civil jury awards in tort cases. These laws embody a moral commitment against knowing killing that, in traditional criminal contexts, is uncontroversial. It should be no more controversial when it occurs on a global scale.”


Jackson is set to speak in Copenhagen.

I call to your attention GOP Sen. Jim Inhofe’s warning when the EPA took its first steps on this finding:


Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said today that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed endangerment finding will unleash a torrent of regulations that will destroy jobs, harm consumers, and extend the agency’s reach into every corner of American life. Despite enormous expense and hardship for the American economy, these regulations will have virtually no effect on climate change.

“Today’s action by the EPA is the beginning of a regulatory barrage that will destroy jobs, raise energy prices for consumers, and undermine America’s global competitiveness,” Senator Inhofe said. “It now appears EPA’s regulatory reach will find its way into schools, hospitals, assisted living facilities, and just about any activity that meets minimum thresholds in the Clean Air Act. Rep. John Dingell was right: the endangerment finding will produce a ‘glorious mess.’

“It’s worth noting that the solution to this ‘glorious mess’ is not for Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation, which replaces one very bad approach with another.


Congress should pass a simple, narrowly-targeted bill that stops EPA in its tracks.”

Endangering Farmers, the Elderly, and Construction Workers: Once EPA makes a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act, who, specifically, would be affected? As EPA’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) makes clear, an endangerment finding would lead to regulations covering nearly every facet of the American economy. In reading through comments filed in the regulatory docket, one is struck by how broadly the Clean Air Act would apply once an endangerment finding is made-especially to sources that have hitherto never come under the ambit of the Act. EPA received thousands of public comments from various industries and groups that expressed concern and outright opposition-on issues of cost, competitiveness, jobs, and administrative complexity-to greenhouse gas regulation under the CAA.

AN “HISTORIC” DAY: EPA’s finding is indeed historic news, for the simple fact that it will enlarge EPA’s regulatory reach to an unprecedented degree, extending it into every corner of the US economy, causing enormous economic damage. According to Peter Glaser, a national legal expert on the Clean Air Act, an endangerment finding will lead to new EPA regulations covering virtually everything, including “office buildings, apartment buildings, warehouse and storage buildings, educational buildings, health care buildings such as hospitals and assisted living facilities, hotels, restaurants, religious worship buildings, public assembly buildings, supermarkets, retail malls, agricultural facilities…and many others.” An array of new development projects could be delayed, perhaps for several years, causing “an economic train wreck.” This conclusion was supported recently by the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, which found that EPA’s new carbon regulations would destroy over 800,000 jobs and result in a cumulative GDP loss of $7 trillion by 2029.

Risky Legal Schemes: “…hospitals, schools, farms, commercial buildings, and a host of other small sources emit more than 250 tons per year of CO2-a limit expressly mentioned in the statute-they will be required, once an endangerment finding is made and CO2 becomes a regulated pollutant, to obtain costly, burdensome pre-construction permits for their activities…Further, Glaser notes that “the statutory language is mandatory and does not leave any room for EPA to exercise discretion or create exceptions.” In short, unless Congress exempts them, there’s no way out for schools, assisted living facilities, and thousands upon thousands of small businesses.”


I declare the Obama eco-appartchiks a public danger whose regulatory emissions must be contained.


Side note: My views on the Obama green power grab and the global warming mob have been clear and unchanged from day one. Some folks have asked about the ad that is appearing on the site today. I obviously do not agree with the advertiser’s support for the Copenhagen treaty.

Dem Senator warns Obama on taking action...




56 Chicken Little newspapers on climate change

December 7, 2009 09:29 AM by Michelle Malkin


56 Chicken Little newspapers on climate change

By Michelle Malkin  •  December 7, 2009 09:29 AM


Make sure you keep this list of 56 newspapers handy when looking for thorough, fair coverage of the ClimateChange scandal.

These are 56 newspapers that you cannot trust on the issue:

Today, the eco-herd of papers published a collective editorial whipping up hysteria over the issue in the face of massive data manipulation, suppression, and bullying of dissenters.

Someone should translate the phrase “Hide the Decline” in all the 20-plus languages editorial has been printed in and stamp it across their front pages:

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.

…The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based…

…Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions.


The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.


No amount of evidence will dent the cult’s belief in AGW and the need for what the collectivist editorialists call transformative “social justice.”

We’ve heard apocalyptic threats against “doing nothing” before. Let’s remember how the Chicken Little story ends.




WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Science czar's guru called for more carbon 
CO2 promoted as greenhouse gas needed to fight global starvation


Science czar's guru called for more carbon

CO2 promoted as greenhouse gas needed to fight global starvation

Posted: December 07, 2009
10:00 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


John Holdren


This is the first of a three-part series of articles exploring Obama administration science czar John P. Holdren's self-acknowledged intellectual debt to geochemist Harrison Brown. The second part, to be published tomorrow, will feature Brown's endorsement of government-enforced eugenics as a necessary measure to prevent global over-population.

In the 1950s, before climate scientists had targeted carbon dioxide as a dangerous chemical, atomic scientist Harrison Brown, one of Obama science czar Eric Holdren's acknowledged gurus, called for a global increase in carbon dioxide, precisely because of its perceived greenhouse gas effects.

Harrison Brown – a geochemist who supervised the production of plutonium for the Manhattan Project – wrote in his 1954 Malthusian book "The Challenge of Man's Future" that the production of the food needed to feed an increasing world population could be advanced by human-manipulated greenhouse effects, including forcing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In 1986, science czar Holdren co-edited a scientific reader, "Earth and the Human Future: Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown."

In one of his introductory essays written for the book, Holdren acknowledged he read Brown's "The Challenge of Man's Future" when he was in high school and that the book had a profound effect on his intellectual development.

Holdren acknowledged Brown's book transformed his thinking about the world and "about the sort of career I wanted to pursue."

Holdren further commented in glowing terms that Brown's book was a work "that should have reshaped permanently the perceptions of all serious analysts about the interactions of the demographic, biological geophysical, technological, economic and sociopolitical dimensions of contemporary problems."

Pump more gas

Lamenting on page 140 that "the earth's atmosphere contains only a minute concentration – about 0.03 percent" – Brown observed, "It has been demonstrated that a tripling of carbon-dioxide concentration in the air will approximately double the growth rates of tomatoes, alfalfa, and sugar beets."

Brown then argued on page 141 that "controlled atmospheres enriched in carbon dioxide" would be an essential component of enormous greenhouses built to grow plants in nutrient-rich solutions.

His conclusion? Pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in all regions of the world.

"It would perhaps be easier to adopt methods which would increase the carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere as a whole than to attempt to build elaborate greenhouses to confine the enriched air," Brown wrote on page 142.

"If, in some manner, the carbon-dioxide content of the atmosphere could be increased threefold, world food production might be doubled."

Brown was clear that world governments should cooperate to generate excess carbon dioxide, not to reduce human-generated carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

"One can visualize, on a world scale, huge carbon-dioxide generators pouring the gas into the atmosphere," he wrote.

Brown went so far as to recommend burning more coal to generate electricity, precisely because burning coal emitted carbon dioxide.

"There are between 18 and 20 tons of carbon dioxide over every acre of the earth's surface," he noted on page 142. "In order to double the amount in the atmosphere, at least 500 billion tons of coal would have to be burned – an amount six times greater than that which has been consumed during all of human history."

In the absence of coal, Brown recommended producing the needed carbon dioxide from limestone: "In the absence of coal, the equivalent in energy would have to be provided from some other source so that the carbon dioxide could be produced by heating limestone."

Brown ultimately rejected the construction of vast greenhouses or the use of a carbon-dioxide enriched environment because they would be too expensive, not because the methods would not work to stimulate food production.

Writing about algae farms in the tropics, for instance, Brown observed: "If air that is enriched with carbon dioxide could be used, even higher yields might be obtainable, but we have seen that operating costs, and in particular energy costs, become very large if carbon dioxide must be manufactured."







The Environmental Protection Agency announced that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases threaten public health and the environment.

Complex, Costly Regulations Copenhagen Conference


EPA Formally Declares CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant

Posted By Nick Loris On December 7, 2009 @ 2:04 pm In Energy and Environment

Step aside, elected Members of Congress. If you can’t pass cap and trade legislation, The Environmental Protection Agency will move in with massively complex and costly regulations [1] that would micromanage just about every aspect of the economy. They announced [2]today that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten public health and the environment.

Since 85 percent of the U.S. economy runs on fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, imposing a cost on CO2 is equivalent to placing an economy-wide tax on energy use. The kind of industrial-strength EPA red tape that the agency could enforce in the name of global warming would result in millions of dollars in compliance costs. These are unnecessary costs that businesses will inevitably pass on to the American consumer, slow economic growth and kill jobs. Although the crafted rules say only facilities that emit 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year or more will be affected, businesses fear the exemption may not hold up in court and could now be imposed on many smaller commercial buildings, farms, restaurants, churches and small businesses.

Even EPA administrator Lisa Jackson acknowledged top-down regulations would be more costly than a cap and trade system, saying, “Legislation is so important because it will combine the most efficient, most economy-wide, least costly, least disruptive way to deal with carbon dioxide pollution,” she recently stated, adding that “we get further faster without top-down regulation.” Of course, this isn’t a legitimate argument to pass cap and trade legislation. Cap and trade, a climate treaty and EPA regulations are the three ugly step-sisters of climate policy. Yet they’re trudging forward anyway.

The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis study of the economic effects of carbon dioxide regulations found cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of $7 trillion by 2029 single-year GDP losses exceeding $600 billion in some years, energy cost increases of 30 percent or more, and annual job losses exceeding 800,000 for several years. Hit particularly hard is manufacturing, which will see job losses in some industries that exceed 50 percent.

And George Will writes [3]that any emissions reduction targets, whether they come from the EPA, cap and trade, or a Copenhagen treaty are simply unattainable: “Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate-change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million Americans in 2050, so Obama’s promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875. That. Will. Not. Happen.”

In the press release today, the EPA stated [2], “Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity,” and that “GHGs are the primary driver of climate change.” When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the initial endangerment finding in April, administrator Jackson noted that the agency [4]relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPPC].” Not only does Climategate seriously call this into question but so do the 700 dissenting scientists refuting claims made by the IPCC report. That 700 figure is more than 13 times the number of scientists (52) who had a direct role in the IPCC report.

Regardless of one’s view of carbon dioxide and global warming, environmental improvement and economic growth do not have to be mutually exclusive; in fact, most of the time environmental improvements come as a result of economic development. Companies will innovate and invest their resources to become more energy efficient because it will save them money in both the short and the long run.

In his New York Times column over the weekend, Jared Diamond points to Wal-Mart as an example: “Obviously, a business can save money by finding ways to spend less while maintaining sales. This is what Wal-Mart did with fuel costs, which the company reduced by $26 million per year simply by changing the way it managed its enormous truck fleet. Instead of running a truck’s engine all night to heat or cool the cab during mandatory 10-hour rest stops, the company installed small auxiliary power units to do the job. In addition to lowering fuel costs, the move eliminated the carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to taking 18,300 passenger vehicles off the road.”

Increased regulations and red tape will stifle that innovation by reducing the amount of resources that can be invested efficiently. They will have disruptive impacts on the economy and on living standards that will ripple throughout the country to reduce the earth’s temperature a few tenths of a degree.

For more, see The Heritage Foundation’s full analysis [5]on the how EPA regulations would hijack the economy.

Article printed from The Foundry: http://blog.heritage.org

URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/07/epa-formally-declares-co2-a-dangerous-pollutant/

URLs in this post:

[1] complex and costly regulations: http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2407.cfm

[2] announced : http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/08D11A451131BCA585257685005BF252

[3] writes : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120403073.html

[4] the agency : http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Determination.pdf

[5] full analysis : http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energyandenvironment/cda08-10.cfm






Copenhagen Consequences

Copenhagen Consequences

At this December's United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen, proponents of the Kyoto Protocol - which is expiring in 2012 - will be working on a new international agreement for lowering carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions in order to address global warming in the decades ahead.

The United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and for good reason since its provisions would have been costly while having virtually no impact on world temperatures. Nonetheless, many in the international community aspire to finalize stringent new post-2012 provisions at Copenhagen, or at least initiate the process that would lead to such measures. They have also expressed optimism that the Obama administration would join in such an agreement. However, the U.S. should follow existing policy put forth in the 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution and not enter into any global warming treaty that leaves out major developing nations or harms the American economy.

Fact Sheet: Copenhagen Consequences: What You Need To Know

Heritage Research


December 4, 2009
Opportunity at Copenhagen -- Nations Should Promote Free Trade at the Climate Conference
By Daniella Markheim
(Special Report #74)
Copenhagen 2009 -- yet another climate conference. Fortunately, this month's conference, which had been well on its way to renewing and reinforcing the controversial Kyoto ...


November 23, 2009
Why Must the U.N. Be Central to Addressing Global Warming?
By Brett D. Schaefer
(Special Report #73)
Instead of letting the U.N. lead "climate change" negotiations, the U.S. and other nations expected to shoulder the burden should work outside of the U.N. ...


November 17, 2009
What Americans Need to Know About the Copenhagen Global Warming Conference
By Ben Lieberman
(Special Report #71)
In December, the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will meet in Copenhagen to work on a ...


November 17, 2009
The "Kyoto II" Climate Change Treaty: Implications for American Sovereignty
By Steven Groves
(Special Report #72)
The Copenhagen conference's proposed "Kyoto II" successor agreement poses a clear threat to American sovereignty.


November 12, 2009
Copenhagen and Beyond: Is There a Successor to the Kyoto Protocol?
By Steve Groves
(Testimony )
As the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen approaches, the United States must determine the definition and limits of American leadership within the context ...


November 10, 2009
Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Could Threaten National Security
By James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
(Special Report #70)
According to Senator Boxer, passage of a cap-and-trade bill is a matter of national security. She is wrong.


November 3, 2009
Senate's Byrd-Hagel Resolution Should Guide Global Warming Discussion in Copenhagen
By Ben Lieberman
(Special Report #69)
The Administration should follow the Byrd-Hagel Resolution in Copenhagen and steer clear of any agreement that violates its provisions.


November 2, 2009
Ten Things about China and Climate Change
By Derek Scissors, Ph.D.
(Special Report #68)
With Copenhagen conference looming, the U.S. must be realistic about carbon emissions and China.


October 28, 2009
National Security: Not a Good Argument for Global Warming Legislation
By James Jay Carafano, Ph. D.
(Testimony )
The Clean Energy Jobs and America Power Act (S. 1733) has engendered tremendous controversy. Concerns abound about the legislation's adverse economic consequences, and there is ...






Climategate may prevent it. Article by Declan McCullagh.


ClimateGate Could Threaten Copenhagen Climate Deal

·                  Posted by Declan McCullagh


Widening concern about the state of climate science after thousands of internal e-mails and computer files were posted on the Internet could jeopardize any agreement at this week's summit in Copenhagen.

Although a sweeping international deal already appeared unlikely, agreement on even less ambitious measures will be complicated by the growing ClimateGate scandal and questions that have been raised about the reliability of computer models linking global warming to man-made activities. No less an authority than the U.N.'s top climate official, Yvo de Boer, acknowledged on Sunday that the data leak was damaging; domestically, Republicans are pressing the Obama administration to reevaluate its position. (See CBS News' previous coverage.)

The summit in Denmark that began Monday, properly titled the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference, is expected to draw some 100 heads of state, including President Obama. One unanswered question: How willing are wealthier, developed nations to curb their economic output and tax their citizens to pay poorer countries to emit less carbon dioxide?

A November 20 report from a U.N. working group outlines what many nations would like to see in a final treaty. Wealthier nations including the United States will make "mandatory contributions" to a "multilateral climate change fund" paid for by the requirement that "developed country parties shall restructure their taxation regime." The report warns: "Delay by developed country parties in implementing their commitments to reduce emissions will increase their climate debt to the developing country parties."

The leaked electronic files have proven problematic because the argument for an international treaty is attached to this chain of reasoning: the earth is warming, the primary cause is man-made carbon dioxide emissions, the effect is harmful and can be remediated by limiting CO2 output, and, finally, it's worth spending billions or even trillions to do so. If foundational data about temperature measurements is in error, as critics now say is the case -- well, we might as well cancel the Copenhagen summit and tell all those inbound private jets to turn around and return home.

To be sure, many -- perhaps even most -- climate researchers say any flaw in the leaked data assembled by the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) does not mean the theory of man-made global warming is false. Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, calls evidence for that theory "overwhelming," and Obama administration scientists last week downplayed the scandal, as did a U.N. panel. Tempers are flaring: one of the East Anglia academics resorted to calling a skeptic "an asshole" on a live BBC television interview.

And the scandal seems to be broadening. Internal investigations are underway at the CRU and Penn State (with the state senate warning that the school's budget may be at risk), one estimate from a free-market group says that 12 of the 26 scientists who wrote the relevant section of a U.N. global warming report are "up to their necks in ClimateGate," and the BBC and independent analysts are evaluating the CRU's computer code and finding it lacking.

Saudi Arabia's U.N. negotiator says the country's confidence in temperature data is diminished. England's meterological office has announed that it will begin a three-year review of its analysis, which relied heavily on CRU data. The free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, which runs the GlobalWarming.org site that takes a critical look at pro-warming research, has petitioned the EPA to halt regulatory proceedings based on U.N. temperature data, and has announced plans to sue NASA by the end of the month if it does not release scientific and other data that CEI initially asked for three years ago.

In the words of Christopher Booker, a journalist for the U.K. Telegraph: "What has become arguably the most influential set of evidence used to support the case that the world faces unprecedented global warming, developed, copied and promoted hundreds of times, has now been (definitively called into question). Yet it is on a blind acceptance of this kind of evidence that 16,500 politicians, officials, scientists and environmental activists will be gathering in Copenhagen to discuss measures which, if adopted, would require us all in the West to cut back on our carbon dioxide emissions by anything up to 80 per cent, utterly transforming the world economy."

All of a sudden, the domestic political situation has become more perilous for politicians who are proposing dramatic new laws or taxes based on theories of climate change. In addition to questions being raised by congressional Republicans, onetime VP candidate Sarah Palin has has published a statement on Facebook saying "ClimateGate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed (in Copenhagen), including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan." No less than 59 percent of Americans believe that scientists have faked climate change research and only 22 percent view the U.N. as a reliable source of global warming information, according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll.

The probability that global warming alarmism has become a political movement, as MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen has stated and libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has argued, has long been evident. But what we now know is that many of the most prominent climate change scientists have clambered on board that movement, which calls their models, their analysis, and their policy recommendations into question.

Further evidence inadvertently comes from Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois, who apparently threatened a New York Times reporter with "the Big Cutoff" on Saturday for writing an article that displeased him. Schlesinger did not immediately respond to questions from CBS News on Monday. (In retrospect, we probably should have figured this out when NASA's James Hansen called for oil executives to be tried for "high crimes against humanity." What does that make those of us who drive gas or diesel-fueled cars? Accomplices? Or unindicted co-conspirators?)

The official U.N. Copenhagen Web site says, without mentioning arguments that the science remains unsettled, that "the world has only a very narrow window of opportunity to undertake a first dramatic shift towards a low-carbon society and to prevent the worst scenarios of scientists from coming true." What are the odds that the tens of thousands of attendees will take a break from scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges to ensure that those scenarios are based on fact and careful analysis, not other motivations that might be less pure?

Update 2:30 p.m. ET: In November 2007, the American Physical Society (a professional association of physicists) adopted a statement saying "the evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring... We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." Now members of the society, including two eminent professors of physics at Princeton University, are circulating a letter calling ClimateGate "an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership." The letter calls on the society's management to withdraw the 2007 statement; I'll let you know what the American Physical Society has to say on the matter.







Tale of Two Hoaxes: Man-made Global Warming and Obamacare



Two frauds perpetuated by radical leftists in government.



AP: EPA Says CO2 Endangers Health




Tale of Two Hoaxes: Man-made Global Warming and Obamacare

December 7, 2009


Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer 

Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!




RUSH: Now, we've known this was going to happen.  We've known it was going to happen.  It has happened, or it's on the verge of happening today.  The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, has concluded greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, are endangering people's health and must be regulated, signaling that the Obama administration is prepared to contain global warming without congressional action if necessary.  The AP is simply joyous as they report this.  "EPA administrator," and well-known leftist hack, "Lisa Jackson, scheduled a news conference for later today to announce the [so-called] endangerment finding. ... The finding is timed to boost the administration’s arguments at an international climate conference [on the man-made global warming hoax] that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation."
There is an underground government.  All of these bureaucracies, all of these bureaucrats, in fact, in the Senate health care bill there are 111 new bureaucracies created, 111 new federal bureaucracies created.  We now have an underground government.  We are going to get the effect of cap and trade, cap and tax, without any legislation on it.  "The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had declined to aggressively pursue the issue." Now, this all happened because of the Supreme Court.  Now, what is being called here a dangerous pollutant that is endangering people's health is what you and I exhale:  carbon dioxide.  And as this joyous AP story notes, this has been in the works since the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that carbon dioxide is a pollutant which should be controlled. 

Now, this is not funny.  On the surface of it it's funny, it's ridiculous.  But it's not funny.  It's insidious.  I want to walk you through some progressions here.  The Supreme Court first off has assigned to itself the role of expertise in matters of science.  And of course they're all-knowing and they're all-powerful.  The finding, the EPA finding today, timed to boost the administration's arguments that the Copenhagen climate conference, the United States is aggressively taking action to combat global warming.  Good thing this is not political.  Good thing it's not a political ruling, eh?  Now, by the way, let's go back, first sentence: "The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people’s health and must be regulated."  This is all about CO2.  So does this mean that workers, employees, can sue their employers if they are made to work around people who are emitting such a dangerous substance as carbon dioxide?  And if not, why not?  The EPA, a federal agency, has just said this is poison; has just said that it is destroying the climate; has just said that CO2 endangers human health. 

So you let some clever trial lawyer get hold of this and get some poor employee somewhere who comes down with some disease, sues the employer for making him work next to somebody exhaling this stuff.  You think I'm making this up.  I hope it doesn't happen but I'm trying to illustrate the absolute absurdity of this.  This is just part and parcel of the divide we face, the Universe of Lies, the Universe of Reality and what is really intended for this country and the world at the hands of both domestic and international leftists and Marxists.  And, you know, there's no difference in this global warming hoax, and the health care reform hoax.  They are born of the same ideology, they're born of the same tactics, and they are born with the same objectives.  Radical leftists claim that man-made global warming destroys lives.  Radical leftists also claim that private sector medical care destroys lives.  The president himself has indicted the medical community for this.  The hoax, I want to walk you through these progressions.  The hoax known as man-made global warming is based on manipulated, falsified, altered temperature data, basic weather information.  



One tree in the Siberian peninsula, one tree is responsible for this hoax.  And a guy with this hockey stick graph, which has also now been proven to be a sham.  The hoax known as Obamacare, deficit neutral, will improve health care, is based on manipulated financial data, basic accounting information.  Key people who gathered, manipulated and destroyed inexact temperature information, information that is the foundation of the global warming theory, were considered trustworthy, they are scientists.  I'm speaking of the climatologists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.  These people are knowing participants in a fraud, however.  They had the respect of the world, they were scientists, and they were saving the planet, and no one doubted them except ideological skeptics and a few scientists who had the guts to.  Key people who gathered and manipulated inexact financial information, information that is the foundation of the deficit neutral theory in health care, were considered trustworthy, with wonderfully good intentions.  I'm speaking of the accountants at the CBO.  These people are knowing participants in a fraud.  

The underlying data proving man-made global warming has been hidden from public scrutiny.  The underlying laws providing and proving Obamacare is deficit neutral had been hidden from public scrutiny.  The State-Controlled Media has knowingly and willingly advanced the man-made global warming fraud.  The State-Controlled Media has knowingly and willingly advanced the Obamacare fraud.  A significant person at the ClimateGate fraud is Dr. Phil Jones.  He has been forced to step down as director of the Climate Research Unit due to his corrupt behavior.  A significant person in the US Senate in the Obamacare fraud is Max Baucus.  He should have to step down due to his corrupt behavior.  ClimateGate was advanced by propaganda and by public perception that men and women of science dressed up in lab coats were honest brokers of facts, when in fact all they were were greedy, grubby leftists on the take.  Most of science is funded by grant.  Science, government, academia, and media, have all been corrupted.  They are the Four Corners of Deceit.  

ClimateGate advanced by propaganda and the public perception, the men and women of science dressed up in lab coats were honest. Obamacare advanced by propaganda where the White House called a phony meeting of doctors, who support socialized medicine, and passed out white lab coats to them for them for a photo-op.  ClimateGate and Obamacare are the most significant power grabs, tax increases, and losses of freedom and liberty in American history.  ClimateGate and Obamacare require central planners running a command-and-control economy.  ClimateGate and Obamacare require much higher taxes that will cripple the private sector and the domestic United States economy.  ClimateGate and Obamacare severely limit personal freedom and disposable income.  ClimateGate and Obamacare are both job killers.  ClimateGate and Obamacare are economy killers.  ClimateGate and Obamacare are budget killers.  ClimateGate and Obamacare require, demand everyone's participation.  

Violating the laws of these two pieces of legislation will result in fines and/or incarceration.  ClimateGate and Obamacare put the public sector and public servants in total control of the private sector and over every individual American.  Truth, facts, and public opinion mean nothing to the radical leftists ramming through ClimateGate and Obamacare.  They are one and the same issue.  They have the same technique, the same propaganda, the same end objective.  They are part-and-parcel of an un-American and unconstitutional takeover of American lives by radical leftists in the United States government and governments all over the world, and they are all based on lies.  They are all based on frauds.  They are all based on man-made hoaxes advanced by liars, dressed up as people we should trust.