Posts Tagged ‘Press’

How the world temperature “record” was manipulated through HUGE smoothing radius

15 februari, 2011

As a continuation of my previous post How the world temperature “record” was manipulated through dropping of stations I will continue my expose of official ways to manipulate data. This time about the smoothing radius.

It sounds like a very boring technical detail, and it is, but it plays an important part in the official manipulation of the temperature record. Others have shown this before and done a very good job presenting it. But it is worth repeating because most people have no idea on what shaky grounds the temperature records are based.

I have written extensively on this blog about the tweaking, “adjustment” and manipulation of the historic and present temperature “record” which are presented in the official figures.

With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Not to mention the great slaughter of GHCN stations around 1990 – roughly 63 % of all climate measuring stations were “dropped”. Oddly enough many of them in cold places – Hmmm? Now the number of GHCN stations are back at the same numbers as in 1890.

Also remember that the US stations are now nearly a third of the all GHCN world stations.

So what is a “smoothing radius”? And why is it so important?

A smoothing radius is: EVERYTHING within 1200 km in ALL directions from the weather station IS GIVEN THE SAME TEMPERATURE AS AT THE STATION!

Regardless of facts, geography and data.

Here is the official description: “Smoothing radius: Distance over which a station influences regional temperature.”

This is of course a VERY HANDY tool. First you drop most of the measuring stations. And the one you chose and keep are very strategically placed. Then you let the stations you ”kept” decide,  or as they so nicely put it “influence” the temperature within a radius of 1200 km.

Now you can influence and “control” the official world temperature “record”.

And remember –This dropping of stations was done on purpose. And what “happened” to the temperature after that – the temperature went up sharply.

Hmnnn??

Can there be a connection???

To recapitulate:

In 3 years, from 1989 to 1992, 5218 stations were purposely “dropped”.

From 1993 to 2000 1384 more stations were “dropped”. A total of 6602 stations.

And if we compare with 1970 with1992 8445 stations have been “dropped”.

If we compare 1970 with year 2000 9829 stations have been “dropped”.

And remember – Nearly ALL OF THESE STATIONS ARE STILL THERE AND GENERATING DATA.

This is the ”logic and science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

So let’s look at the difference so you can understand why this “technicality” plays such a big role:

                           1200 km (745.7 miles) smoothing

                           250 km (155.3 miles) smoothing

Noticing any difference?

The difference is HUGE and VERY revealing.

See ALL these grey areas that “suddenly appears” in the 250 km one? These huge areas of the globe which are grey are the ones where they don’t have ANY DATA. (I.e. the data is there but they don’t use it since dropping of ALL these stations).

That is also why they always “officially” use the 1200 km smoothing in their graphics.

So that you wouldn’t know that Antarctica, Arctic, HUGE PARTS of Africa and Asia is NOT covered in “their measurements”.

Also notice, and this is VERY TYPICAL of them, that ALL these parts that ARE NOT COVERED ARE ALL VERY RED (i.e. very hot).

Do you think this is by coincidence?

And what does that says about the “science” behind this?

And also remember that a 250 km smoothing in it self is VERY large.

If you could use a 100 km smoothing you would see EVEN more parts of the world in grey – i.e. there is no data.

This is the ”logic and science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

To show you how ABSURD a 1200 km (745.7 miles) smoothing is if used in ANY “scientific” way or shape or form, I am going to give you 3 examples.

Stockholm.

If the weather station is placed in Stockholm (Sweden) the temperature there would be given to Moscow, Amsterdam, Berlin, Warszawa, Kiev, Oslo, Helsinki and Prague etc.

You see how TOTALLY ABSURD THIS IS.

Paris.

If the weather station is placed in Paris (France) the temperature there would be given to London, Amsterdam, Berlin, Madrid, Rome, Dublin, Budapest and Prague etc.

You see how TOTALLY ABSURD THIS IS.

Denver.

If the weather station is placed in Denver(Colorado) the temperature there would be given to Las Vegas (NV), Phoenix (AR), over the border to Canada and Mexico, St Louis (IL), Minneapolis (MN) and Dallas (TX) etc.

You see how TOTALLY ABSURD THIS IS.

That’s why “officially” the high Bolivian Andes can have a “record warm” when the temperature is actually measured 1200 km away at the beaches in Peru. Or in the jungles of Brazil.

There has not been any thermometer data in GHCN since 1990 from Bolivia.

None. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.

So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data?

Easy. GIStemp “makes it up” from “nearby” thermometers up to 1200 km away.

The official excuse given is that the data acceptance window closes on one day of the month and Bolivia does not report until after that date. Oh, and they never ever would want to go back and add date into the past after a close date. Yet they are happy to fiddle with, adjust, modify, and wholesale change and delete old data as they change their adjustment methods…”

The same goes on in the Arctic.

And the Antarctic.

And over huge parts of Africa.

And over huge parts of Asia.

And over huge parts of Latin America.

And over the oceans which make up 70% of the surface of earth.

So to sum up the “science” behind the “Global Temperature Record”:

It doesn’t cover 70% of the surface, Antarctic, Arctic, huge parts of Africa, huge parts of Asia and huge parts of Latin America.

Besides that everything is just fine.

Another brilliant example of the trustworthiness of the Global Warming Hysteria.

And “their science”.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

How the world temperature “record” was manipulated through dropping of stations

23 januari, 2011

I have written extensively on this blog about the tweaking, “adjustment” and manipulation of the historic and present temperature “record” which are presented in the official figures.

With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Not to mention the great slaughter of GHCN stations around 1990 – roughly 63 % of all climate measuring stations were “dropped”. Oddly enough many of them in cold places – Hmmm? Now the number of GHCN stations are back at the same numbers as in 1890.

(See for example my posts:

Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!,

More on the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data and the mess they have,

The Big dropout of weather stations since 1989 – A 66% reduction in 11 years,

The Big Difference Between GISS and UAH Temperature Data.

Minus 60 C or not?

The world has never seen such freezing heat OR the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data)

Just one example of this historical “adjustment and tweaking” they are doing:

On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times 2006 to beginning of 2008. The largest single jump was 0.27 C. This occurred between the Oct 13, 2006 and Jan 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomaly of +0.43C to +0.70C, a change of nearly 68%.

And what a “coincidence” that the data is always “modified” in only on direction – guess which one.

Also remember that the US stations are now nearly a third of the all GHCN world stations.

And as I said in the beginningalways remember that these figures are based on the official data that has been tweaked, “adjusted” and manipulated to fit there agenda (cool the past, ignore UHI and land use change factors, huge smoothing radius – 1200km etc.)..

Just a couple of weeks ago a new report was published by Patrick Frank that shows that there has NEVER been a measurement of Sensor measurement uncertainty in ALL the weather stations used for the “Global” temperature “record”.  And that “the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected”.

UNCERTAINTY IN THE GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE INDEX: A REPRESENTATIVE LOWER LIMIT

Patrick Frank, Palo Alto, CA 94301-2436, USA, Energy and Environment, Volume 21, Number 8 / December 2010 DOI: 10.1260/0958-305X.21.8.969

Abstract here:

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/q557742n3221/?p=e174cd02151f44d7bd601ebb287be383&pi=0

Abstract :

“Sensor measurement uncertainty has never been fully considered in prior appraisals of global average surface air temperature. The estimated average ±0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the ±0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of ±0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This ±0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable.”

Summary and Conclusion:

“The assumption of global air temperature sensor noise stationarity is empirically untested and unverified. Estimated noise uncertainty propagates as

   rather than .

Future noise uncertainty in monthly means would greatly diminish if the siting of surface stations is improved and the sensor noise variances become known, monitored, and empirically verified as stationary.

The ±0.46 C lower limit of uncertainty shows that between 1880 and 2000, the trend in averaged global surface air temperature anomalies is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C at the 1σ level. One cannot, therefore, avoid the conclusion that it is presently impossible to quantify the warming trend in global climate since 1880.”

See also the letter to the Editors (APS Physics) by Patrick Frank:

http://www.aps.org/units/nes/newsletters/fall09.cfm

See also

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/what-evidence-for-unprecedented-warming/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/surface-temperature-uncertainty-quantified/

So I thought I show you the drastic dropping of weather stations in 1989-1992. Others have shown this before and done a very good job presenting it. But it is worth repeating because most people has no idea on what shaky grounds the temperature records are based.

And remember –This dropping of stations was done on purpose. And you can see on the graph what “happened” to the temperature after that. For some very “odd” reason it went up sharply.

Hmnnn??

Can there be a connection???

And remember – Nearly ALL OF THESE STATIONS ARE STILL THERE AND GENERATING DATA.

In 3 years, from 1989 to 1992, 5218 stations were purposely “dropped”.

From 1993 to 2000 1384 more stations were “dropped”. A total of 6602 stations.

And if we compare with 1970 with1992 8445 stations have been “dropped”.

If we compare 1970 with year 2000 9829 stations have been “dropped”.

This is the ”logic and science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

                        1970 (15 094 Stations)

                      1990 (9 475 Stations)

                        2000 (5 265 Stations)

Where did all the stations in China, India, Asia, Africa, Latin America, Middle East, Russia, Antarctica, and Australia go?????

AND WHY??????

Whole continents “just disappeared” and most of the landmass of Earth is now NOT COVERED.

And how do you compare the “average” Global temperature when they dropped 9829 stations between 1970 and 2000??????

9829 stations that where part of the “average” global temperature????

This is the “science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

And it gets worse (which in itself s an “achievement”). Look at the map for 2010 – EVEN MORE landmass are “gone” on purpose. Including large parts of USA. See the huge contrast between 2000 an 2010 regarding USA.

                             2010

See also some of my previous post on this subject:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 241

NASA ”systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations.

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 211

How “they” (NASA) make Bolivia a VERY HOT PLACE EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO TEMPERATURE STATIONS OR DATA FROM THERE.

Another brilliant example of the trustworthiness of the Global Warming Hysteria.

And “their science”.

“One Small Problem. There has not been any thermometer data in GHCN since 1990.

None. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.

So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data?

Easy. GIStemp “makes it up” from “nearby” thermometers up to 1200 km away.

So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Peru and the Amazon Jungle. Not exactly the same as snow capped peaks, but hey, you gotta make do with what you have, you know? (The official excuse given is that the data acceptance window closes on one day of the month and Bolivia does not report until after that date. Oh, and they never ever would want to go back and add date into the past after a close date. Yet they are happy to fiddle with, adjust, modify, and wholesale change and delete old data as they change their adjustment methods…)”

Here are some more glaring examples of this “tweaking and adjustment” of the temperature “record”:

NEW ENGLAND’S TEMPERATURE HISTORY AND TRENDS (1911 – 2009)

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/ne_temp_history_trends.pdf

WHY NOAA AND NASA PROCLAMATIONS SHOULD BE IGNORED

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/noaa_2010_report.pdf

“NASA/NOAA homogenization process has been shown to significantly alter the trends in many stations where the siting and rural nature suggest the data is reliable. In fact, adjustments account for virtually all the trend in the data. Unadjusted data for the best sites/rural shows cyclical multi-decadal variations but no net long term trend as former NASA scientist Dr. Ed Long showed here. He showed however that after adjustment, the rural data trend was made consistent with the urban data set with an artificial warming introduced.“

See also

http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/26/nasa-giss-adjusting-the-adjustments/

Just look at this “tweaking” done by NASA/NOAA in August 2007 to the temperature “record”. They just “happened” to LOWER the temperature 1880-1900 by OVER 0.3 C and then they just “happened” to RISE the temperature 1990-2007 by OVER 0.2 C. So “suddenly” you have a nice “warming trend” where there were NONE before. In fact it was a lowering trend from year 2000 which “suddenly” change to a warming trend with OVER 0.4 C difference.

This is the “science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

US Agencies Still Fiddling Temperature Record, Reports SPPI

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?storyid=671981&ret=close

NASA and NOAA, which each receive close to half a billion dollars a year in taxpayer funding, have been systematically fiddling the worldwide temperature record for years, making “global warming” look worse than it is, according to a new paper by the Science and Public Policy Institute.  The findings are reported by Joe D’Aleo, a leading meteorologist.

Robert Ferguson, President of SPPI, said: “Despite billions spent on official claims about the supposed threat of catastrophic man-made ‘global warming’, opinion polls show the public are no longer fooled. A  main reason why the voters buy don’t climate alarmism any more is that the tiny but well-connected, lavishly-funded Climategate clique keeps on being caught out bending the scientific evidence.

The problem of data integrity has recently been commented on by MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen, “Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data…That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.”

Mr. D’Aleo’s paper is a damning exposé of the inner workings of two agencies of the US Government –

The global temperature data from surface stations is “seriously compromised: the data suffer significant contamination by urbanization and other local factors such as changes in land cover and land use”. Numerous peer review papers suggest contamination of 30%, 50% or more.

The state of the temperature database, in the words of one of its operators, is “hopeless”, with “hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy  and duplicate stations”.

•The NASA warming is achieved in part by inventing data in arctic areas where no stations exist.

In the US, the warmest decade of the 20th century was the 1930s, and the warmest year was 1934, NASA’s chief climate scientist announced after the last super El Nino.

NOAA tampered with temperature data in 2000, 2007 and 2009 to create an artificial increase of 0.3 F° in the warming trend since the 1930s.

•NASA admits even today on their website, there is no generally-accepted standard for surface air temperatures.

Temperatures for the 1930s to 1950s have been readjusted downward to make the warming since then seem greater than it is.

Temperatures for recent decades have been readjusted upward to make the warming of the 20th century seem greater than it is.

Over time in the NASA database, the warming trend has been steadily increasing – not because the weather is getting warmer but because NASA keeps tampering with the data.

The data tampering became more serious and more frequent in 2007, when a strong la Niña caused widespread and profound global cooling.

Adjustments by NOAA and NASA, rather than real-world temperature changes, account for virtually all the apparent warming trend in the global data.

NASA and NOAA have repeatedly resisted Freedom of Information Act requests for release of the unadjusted data and documentation of adjustments made, probably because they fear independent analysis will demonstrate the adjustments are unwarranted and warming insignificant

Global temperature databases are “seriously flawed” and “can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or rankings or validate model forecasts”.

In a lengthy paper updated in August 2010, Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? , Watts and D’Aleo catalogued numerous case studies of temperature data tampering around the world.  This issue is of critical importance  because these very data sets are used as justification of advocacy for formulating and implementing unprecedented policy decisions seeking  radical transformations of our society and institutions.

Said Ferguson, “So blatantly obvious has the tampering become that Congress must mandate a thorough investigation of the temperature records, independent of the government scientists controlling them.  A ‘B’ team of non-government and non-UN experts must be established with access to all the raw data, records, adjustments, fudges, bodges  and computer codes currently being black-boxed by government scientists.”

SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY-DRIVEN DECEPTION?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS

(by SPPI)

1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.

2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit signs of urban heat pollution and post measurement adjustments that render them unreliable for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.

3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.

4. Global terrestrial temperature data are compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once reported are no longer being used in data trend analyses.

5. There has been a significant increase in the number of missing months with 40% of the GHCN stations reporting at least one missing month. This requires infilling which adds to the uncertainty and possible error.

 

6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further increases uncertainty.

7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island and land use change contamination.

8. An increase in the percentage of compromised stations with interpolation to vacant data grids may make the warming bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.

9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Changes in data sets introduced a step warming in 2009.

10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.

11. Additional adjustments are made to the data which result in an increasing apparent trend. In many cases, adjustments do this by cooling off the early record.

12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multi-decadal ocean and solar changes.

13. Due to recently increasing frequency of eschewing rural stations and favoring urban airports as the primary temperature data sources, global terrestrial temperature data bases are thus seriously flawed and can no longer be representative of both urban and rural environments. The resulting data is therefore problematic when used to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.

14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”

15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP should trigger a review of these documents assessing the base uncertainty of forecasts and policy language.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Catastrophic Climate Change – All human activity ceased in Florida and Georgia!

15 januari, 2011

Temperature dropped nearly 10F below average during December.

Did you see any headlines like this from the “Mainstream media” who otherwise are so eager to spread the Global Warming Hysteria?

NO – And this exactly the point. Because, despite this drastic lowering of temperature, life goes on as normal in Florida and Georgia.

And since this was a drastic lowering of the temperature, and does not fit their agenda, no big headlines except in some of the local media.

Isn’t it interesting that a PREDICTED (by their beloved computer models) rise of temperature of 1.5-2F in the next 100 years is considered a catastrophe for humankind and an eminent treat for our survival?.

By the way, these computer models are the same models THAT CAN NOT PREDICT THE WEATHER A WEEK FROM NOW, OR THE WEATHER A WEEK AGO. But they claim that they can predict the temperature a 100 years from now with 0.1F certainty!

As I have been saying all along, it has always been a political agenda – anti human, anti freedom, anti development and anti capitalism. And this Global Warming Hysteria is part of that agenda. It has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the environment or the Earth.

All of this, as always, paid by us, the common people, in the form of taxes, high energy costs and reducing our living standard back to the Stone Age.

And these guys spends billions and TRILLIONS of $ of our tax money to “fight” this predicted “Global Warming” and to “reduce” our “carbon footprint”.  Ramming through their political agenda at all costs.

So lets look what happened in Florida and Georgia in December.

And remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Florida:

This year, the December temperature is – 8.6 F cooler than1931, the warmest December And if we compare this year’s December with 1971 it is – 6.7 F cooler. If we compare with1998 this year’s December is – 14.7 F cooler. And if we compare with 2007 it is -14 F cooler

This December is – 9.3F degrees cooler than the average for 1900-2010. And is the coolest December in 116 years.

That’s what I call RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind!

And somehow a DROP of -9.3F degrees in one month compared to the average is not considered a “big deal”. In fact it is ignored. But a “predicted rise of 1.5-2F over a 100 years is considered by the same Global Warming Hysterics to be a total catastrophe for humankind.

So to recapitulate: a DROP of average temperature of – 0.3F PER DAY is nothing, ignore it. But a “predicted” rise of average temperature of 0.02F PER YEARis a total catastrophe for humankind.

By the way, if you wondered, 0.02F per year is 0.00005F per day.

This is the ”logic and science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

2010 temperature

This year Florida’s temperature is – 3.3 F cooler than1990, the warmest year. And if we compare this year with 1948 it is – 3 F cooler. If we compare with1911 this year is – 2.7 F cooler. And if we compare with 2007 it is – 2.3 F cooler

This year is – 1.33F degrees cooler than the average for 1900-2010. And is the 5th coolest year in 116 years.

That’s what I call RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind!

Georgia:

This year, the December temperature is – 17.3 F cooler than1931, the warmest December And if we compare this year’s December with 1971 it is -16.5 F cooler. If we compare with1984 this year’s December is – 15.8 F cooler. And if we compare with 2007 it is -13.2 F cooler

This December is 8.34F degrees cooler than the average for 1900-2010. And is the coolest December in 116 years.

That’s what I call RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind!

And somehow a DROP of -8.34F degrees in one month compared to the average is not considered a “big deal”. In fact it is ignored. But a “predicted rise of 1.5-2F over a 100 years is considered a total catastrophe for humankind.

So to recapitulate: a DROP of average temperature of – 0.27F PER DAY is nothing, ignore it. But a “predicted” rise of average temperature of 0.02F PER YEAR is a total catastrophe for humankind.

This is the ”logic and science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

2010 temperature

This year Georgia’s temperature is – 3.4 F cooler than1921, the warmest year. And if we compare this year with 1998 it is 2.8 F cooler. If we compare with1946 this year is – 2.7 F cooler. And if we compare with 2007 it is – 1.7 F cooler

This year is – 0.91F degrees cooler than the average for 1900-2010. And is the 22nd coolest year in 116 years.

That’s what I call RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind!

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate change policy has nothing to do with environmental protection

20 november, 2010

“Klimaschutz hat mit Umweltschutz kaum mehr etwas zu tun“

I have from day one written many, many posts in this blog about the intimidation of people and blatant censoring of facts done in the name of ”science” and Global Warming Hysteria. And that the Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with saving the Earth or the environment. It has always been a political agenda.

(See for example my post The Big Money & The Global Governance/Government Agenda That Fuels Environmentalism)

I have written extensible (over 120 of posts) about the scam called Cap and Trade, –  the Biggest Heist in History-  where BOTH BUYER AND SELLER BENEFITS FROM CHEATING. And we, as taxpayers and consumers pay the prize. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation.

And recognize it for what it is – A GIANT FINANCIAL SCAM that puts all the burden on the common people and does nothing whatsoever for the environment.

Therefore it is refreshing to se that more and more of the Global warming Hysterics are coming out from behind their masks and are openly admitting their political agenda.

The latest one is Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III. He is also the deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology. He will be co-chairing the Working Group “Mitigation of Climate Change”.

Here are some direct quotes from an article in Neue Zürcher Zeitung November 14:

Grundsätzlich ist es ein grosser Fehler, Klimapolitik abgetrennt von den grossen Themen der Globalisierung zu diskutieren. Der Klimagipfel in Cancún Ende des Monats ist keine Klimakonferenz, sondern eine der grössten Wirtschaftskonferenzen seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg….. da führt kein Weg daran vorbei, dass ein Grossteil der fossilen Reserven im Boden bleiben muss.

Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.“

Aber dann müssen wir sehen, dass erfolgreiche Klimapolitik eben eine andere globale Handels- und Finanzpolitik braucht.“

Und in den Industrieländern wird uns klar, dass für ein Klimaschutzziel von zwei Grad weder rein technische Lösungen noch Lebensstilwandel ausreichen. Die Leute hier in Europa haben die groteske Vorstellung, Einkaufen im Bioladen oder Elektroautos lösten das Problem. Das ist arrogant, denn der ökologische Fussabdruck unseres Lebensstils hat sich in den letzten 30 Jahren vergrössert, trotz Öko-Bewegung.“

Es muss Strafen und Anreize geben: weltweite CO 2 -Zölle und Technologie-Transfer.“

Was wir suchen müssen, ist eine Oase, das ist die kohlenstofffreie Weltwirtschaft. Es geht um den gemeinsamen Aufbruch zu dieser Oase.“

My english translation:

“Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. there is no getting around the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.”

“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this, is obvious.

One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”

“But then we need to see that a successful climate policy must specify a different global trade and financial policy.”

“And in developed countries, we have realized that for a climate protection target of two degrees neither purely technical solutions nor life style change will be sufficient. The people here in Europe, have the grotesque idea that shopping in the health food stores or in electric cars solved the problem. This is arrogant, because the ecological footprint of our lifestyle has increased in the last 30 years, despite the eco-movement.”

“There must be penalties and incentives: global CO 2-tariffs and technology transfer.”

“What we need to look for is an oasis that is the non-carbon global economy. It’s about the common departure for this oasis.”

The article from NZZ here:

http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/schweiz/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu_1.8373227.html

Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu»

Klimaschutz hat mit Umweltschutz kaum mehr etwas zu tun, sagt der Ökonom Ottmar Edenhofer. Der nächste Weltklimagipfel in Cancún sei eigentlich ein Wirtschaftsgipfel, bei dem es um die Verteilung der Ressourcen gehe. Interview: Bernhard Pötter

NZZ am Sonntag: Herr Edenhofer, beim Klimaschutz fordern alle eine Reduzierung von Emissionen. Sie sprechen jetzt von «gefährlicher Emissionsreduzierung». Was ist das?

Ottmar Edenhofer: Bisher ging Wirtschaftswachstum immer Hand in Hand mit dem Wachstum der Treibhausgasemissionen. Ein Prozent Wachstum heisst ein Prozent mehr Emissionen. Ins historische Gedächtnis der Menschheit hat sich eingebrannt: Wer reich ist, verfeuert dafür Kohle, Öl oder Gas. Und deshalb haben die Schwellenländer Angst vor Emissionsgrenzen.

Beim Klimaschutz sollten aber alle mitmachen, sonst funktioniert er nicht.

Das sagt sich so leicht. Aber vor allem die Industriestaaten haben ein System, das fast ausschliesslich auf fossilen Energien beruht. Es gibt kein historisches Vorbild und keine Weltregion, die ihr Wirtschaftswachstum von den Emissionen abgekoppelt hat. Da können Sie nicht von Indien oder China erwarten, dass die finden, dass das eine tolle Idee ist. Und es kommt noch schlimmer: Wir sind mitten in einer Renaissance der Kohle, weil Öl und Gas teurer geworden sind, Kohle aber nicht. Die Schwellenländer bauen gerade für die nächsten 70 Jahre ihre Städte und Kraftwerke, als ob es dauerhaft keinen hohen CO 2 -Preis gäbe.

Das Neue an Ihrem Vorschlag zu einem Global Deal ist die Betonung, wie wichtig Entwicklungspolitik für die Klimapolitik ist. Bis jetzt denken viele bei Entwicklungshilfe an Almosen.

Das wird sich sofort ändern, wenn global Emissionsrechte verteilt werden. Wenn das pro Kopf der Bevölkerung geschieht, dann ist Afrika der grosse Gewinner, und es fliesst viel Geld dorthin. Das hat für die Entwicklungspolitik enorme Konsequenzen. Und es wird sich auch die Frage stellen, wie diese Länder mit so viel Geld überhaupt sinnvoll umgehen können.

Das klingt alles nicht mehr nach der Klimapolitik, die wir kennen.

Grundsätzlich ist es ein grosser Fehler, Klimapolitik abgetrennt von den grossen Themen der Globalisierung zu diskutieren. Der Klimagipfel in Cancún Ende des Monats ist keine Klimakonferenz, sondern eine der grössten Wirtschaftskonferenzen seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Warum? Weil wir noch 11 000 Gigatonnen Kohlenstoff in den Kohlereserven unter unseren Füssen haben – und wir dürfen nur noch 400 Gigatonnen in der Atmosphäre ablagern, wenn wir das 2-Grad-Ziel halten wollen. 11 000 zu 400 – da führt kein Weg daran vorbei, dass ein Grossteil der fossilen Reserven im Boden bleiben muss.

De facto ist das eine Enteignung der Länder mit den Bodenschätzen. Das führt zu einer ganz anderen Entwicklung als der, die bisher mit Entwicklungspolitik angestossen wurde.

Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.

Trotzdem leidet die Umwelt unter dem Klimawandel – vor allem im Süden.

Es wird auch viel bei der Anpassung zu tun sein. Aber das geht eben weit über klassische Entwicklungspolitik hinaus: Wir werden in Afrika mit dem Klimawandel einen Rückgang der landwirtschaftlichen Erträge sehen. Aber damit kann man umgehen, wenn die Effizienz der Produktion gesteigert wird – und vor allem, wenn der afrikanische Agrarhandel in die Weltwirtschaft eingebettet wird. Aber dann müssen wir sehen, dass erfolgreiche Klimapolitik eben eine andere globale Handels- und Finanzpolitik braucht.

Das grosse Missverständnis vom Uno-Gipfel in Rio 1992 wiederholt sich in der Klimapolitik: Die Industriestaaten reden von Umwelt, die Entwicklungsländer von Entwicklung.

Es ist noch komplizierter. In den achtziger Jahren waren unsere lokalen Umweltprobleme für die Entwicklungsländer ein Luxusproblem. Wer schon satt ist und Auto fährt, der kann sich über sauren Regen aufregen. Für China ging es hingegen darum, wie man 600 Millionen Chinesinnen und Chinesen in die Mittelschicht bekommt. Ob da ein Kohlekraftwerk steht oder in den Kohleminen die Sozialstandards niedrig sind, das war erst einmal nachrangig – wie bei uns im 19. Jahrhundert.

Aber die Welt ist kleiner geworden.

Jetzt kommt etwas Neues: Es geht nicht mehr nur um unseren Luxus, unsere Umwelt. Den Entwicklungsländern wird klar, dass die Ursachen im Norden liegen und die Folgen im Süden. Und in den Industrieländern wird uns klar, dass für ein Klimaschutzziel von zwei Grad weder rein technische Lösungen noch Lebensstilwandel ausreichen. Die Leute hier in Europa haben die groteske Vorstellung, Einkaufen im Bioladen oder Elektroautos lösten das Problem. Das ist arrogant, denn der ökologische Fussabdruck unseres Lebensstils hat sich in den letzten 30 Jahren vergrössert, trotz Öko-Bewegung.

Sie sagen, für die erfolgreiche Klimapolitik sei ein hohes Mass an internationaler Kooperation nötig. Gerade die sieht man aber nicht.

Ich teile die Skepsis. Aber haben wir eine Alternative? Derzeit gibt es drei Ideen, wie man die schwierige Kooperation umgehen kann: Man verlegt sich auf unsichere Experimente wie das Geo-Engineering, man konzentriert sich auf den Ausbau von sauberer und sicherer Energie, oder man vertraut auf regionale und lokale Lösungen. Es gibt allerdings keinen Hinweis darauf, dass eine dieser Ideen das Problem löst. Wir müssen die Kooperation also wollen, so wie man auch für die Regelung der Finanzmärkte zusammenarbeiten muss.

Aber anders als bei der Finanzkrise hat in der Klimapolitik ein Land Vorteile, wenn es nicht mitmacht.

Die Finanzkrise war eine Notoperation – angesichts von Gefahr verhalten wir uns kooperativer. So etwas wird es beim Klima nicht geben, denn es bleibt immer fraglich, ob ein konkretes Ereignis wie eine Überschwemmung ein Klima-Phänomen ist. Aber es gibt immer die Gefahr, dass individuelle Rationalität zur kollektiven Dummheit führt. Deshalb kann man das Klimaproblem nicht allein lösen, sondern muss es vernetzen mit anderen Problemen. Es muss Strafen und Anreize geben: weltweite CO 2 -Zölle und Technologie-Transfer.

In Ihrem neuen Buch ist viel von Ethik die Rede. Spielt sie bei den Klimaverhandlungen eine Rolle?

Ethik spielt immer eine Rolle, wenn es um Macht geht. China und Lateinamerika betonen zum Beispiel immer die historische Verantwortung der Industriestaaten für den Klimawandel. Diese Verantwortung ist nicht zu leugnen, aber es ist auch ein strategisches Argument der Länder. Ich würde eine Verantwortung für die Zeit seit 1995 akzeptieren, weil wir seither wissen, was den Treibhauseffekt verursacht. Die Verantwortung bis zur industriellen Revolution auszudehnen, ist ethisch nicht gerechtfertigt.

Kann man die Ethik nutzen, um den Stillstand zu beenden?

Das Buch enthält eine Parabel: Eine Gruppe Wanderer, die Weltgemeinschaft, ist in der Wüste unterwegs. Die Industriestaaten trinken das Wasser zur Hälfte aus und sagen dann grosszügig: «Jetzt teilen wir den Rest!» Da sagen die anderen: «So geht es nicht, ihr habt das Wasser ja schon zur Hälfte geleert. Wir reden jetzt mal über eure historische Verantwortung.» Wir meinen: Wenn wir nur um den Wasservorrat streiten, weil wir uns auf die ethischen Prinzipien nicht einigen können, werden wir verdursten. Was wir suchen müssen, ist eine Oase, das ist die kohlenstofffreie Weltwirtschaft. Es geht um den gemeinsamen Aufbruch zu dieser Oase.

Copyright © Neue Zürcher Zeitung AG

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

America, You are at a tipping point and you have your last change to stop it – Part 7

2 november, 2010

                All these lies about Obama Care

I have written extensively and for a long time about Obama care (see Obama Care 1 – 34, https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/obama-care/)

These are the “representatives” that rammed through the Obama Care, the financial bill, etc., against the will of the people. They don’t care about the constitution, and they don’t know the difference between the declaration of Independence and the Constitution; and they don’t care that they don’t know.

Together with all the people in congress who voted for this bill. This is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED AND INTENDED with this bill. But to get it through Congress they gladly and willfully lied through their teeth and ears, they even gladly put their lies in writing.

Why? Because they are ramming through their political agenda which they have been waiting and planning so long for to be able do.

I, and many, many others told you so before the Obama  Care “reform” was rammed through at all costs  against the will of the American people.

We where told by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it

Well, we REALLY did find out a lot of things, and remember it’s just the beginning:

It’s going to ruin states, it’s going to be ENFORCED by IRS, close hospitals, fewer doctors, rationing (the new government agency, the Medicare Advisory Board, Section 3403 of the senate bill, that is going to decide (ration) what kind of Medicare you are going to receive), cuts in Medicare, increase the health care costs for companies by billions (and who do you think is going to pay for that?), etc. etc.

And then there were ALL these kickbacks, bribes and pork barrel spending in there to get the bill through at ALL COST.

And worst of all, the blatant hypocrisy from this new nomenklatura:

President Obama declared that the new health care law ”is going to be affecting every American family.” Except his own, of course.

The new health care law exempts the president from having to participate in it. Leadership and committee staffers in the House and Senate who wrote the bill are exempted as well.

Meanwhile, we STILL await Mr. Obama’s explanation why if his ”historic” health care law is so great for America, it’s not good enough for him and his family.

And remember – They DELIBERATELY PULLED THE TRIGGER ON THIS LOADED GUN knowing fully well “most” of the consequences.

 

Here are just a few articles:

Lost in Taxation – The IRS’s vast new ObamaCare powers..

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365223062942574.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_carousel_2

Reform’s Nasty Little Surprises

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=530171

The ObamaCare Writedowns—II Democrats blame a vast CEO conspiracy. .

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304370304575151760348759360.html

America‘s New Nomenklatura

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528809

The ObamaCare Writedowns – The corporate damage rolls in, and Democrats are shocked!.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575146002445136066.html

Obamacare bait & switch

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/27/the-obamacare-bait-and-switch/

The Last Line of Defense between ObamaCare and Kansans

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/the_last_line_of_defense_betwe.html

Obamacare’s health hazard – Implementing new law represents danger for Democrats

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/30/obamacares-health-hazard/

In Obamacare Wonderland – Courts reject key defense for the individual mandate

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/15/in-obamacare-wonderland/

ObamaCare and Voters – Clinton and Obama told Democrats it would be popular. Whoops.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303284604575582394262243272.html

The reality is that voters who oppose ObamaCare are far more knowledgeable about the law and its consequences than most Congressmen who voted for it.”

So which system do you thinks works best?

                                              Old System

                                        New Obama Care

 Obama’s “Big Lies” Get Bigger

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_howard_rich/obama_s_big_lies_get_bigger

“..the top actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid revealed that millions of American seniors will have to pay increased out-of-pocket health care costs next year for “less generous benefit packages” as a direct result of Obamacare.”

“Last month, a Kaiser Family Foundation report showed that family health care costs are up by 14 percent in 2010 – with even larger increases forecast for future years, again as a result of Obamacare.

“Health reform mandates new levels of coverage that will increase employers’ costs at least until 2014,” a Kaiser analyst noted.

Beyond higher costs, “Obamacare” is already reneging on government promises regarding prescription drug plans – another benefit that never should have been subsidized by taxpayers. According to a study released earlier this year by Avalare Heath, as many as 3.7 million seniors could be forced out of their prescription drug coverage under the new law next year – ostensibly so the government can provide them with “more meaningful choices.”

All across the country, Obamacare’s costly new mandates are driving Americans out of their existing coverage and forcing them to pay increased out-of-pocket expenses – perpetuating the worst inefficiencies of government-run health care.

“This much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the health care plans they have now — plans the president repeatedly promised they could keep,” Jeff Jacoby of The Boston Globe wrote recently.”

Make the candidates sign The Repeal Pledge at http://www.TheRepealPledge.com

Repeal Obama care. Watch the video here where doctors are calling for the repeal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef0WPOhtvkY

Rasmussen’s final pre-election poll on the repeal of Obamacare shows that independents favor repeal by the colossal margin of 45 points (70 to 25 percent).

Health Care Law

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

“Eighty-four percent (84%) of voters who have health insurance rate their coverage as good or excellent. Only two percent (2%) describe it as poor. Among voters with health insurance, 60% favor repeal of the health care law.”

“As has been the case since the health care debate first began to heat up in September 2009, there is a large divide between the Political Class and Mainstream voters.  Seventy-six percent (76%) of Mainstream voters favor repeal of the health care law, while 76% of the Political Class are opposed.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of voters in the Political Class say the law will be good for the country. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Mainstream voters disagree.“

“Voters now rank health care second on a list of 10 important issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports.  The economy continues to be the most important issue on voters’ minds. “

Bleak Prognosis

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/551437/201010221913/Bleak-Prognosis.htm

Health Care: The more we know about ObamaCare, the more we find out it wasn’t designed to cut costs but to eventually eliminate private insurance coverage and create a government-run system.

Provisions of the Democrats’ health care overhaul started to become law only a month ago, yet the list of companies dropping medical benefits for their employers is piling up.

Mega-firms such as AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere and Verizon are among those that are either considering ending coverage for their employees or have already chosen to do so.

It’s not just the big companies eliminating benefits, either. Smaller employers are doing the same. Larry M. Elkin, president of Palisades Hudson Financial Group, wrote Thursday in the Business Insider: ”For 15 years, I have taken pride in paying the full cost of health insurance for every full-time Palisades Hudson employee who wanted it. This month marks the last time I will do that.”

Elkin said that every one of his employees has the option of staying on the company plan. But those who choose that route ”will have to pay the entire cost — ranging from $574 to $683 per month — themselves, through payroll deductions.”

And where will those who don’t opt for staying on the company plan go? Maybe they end up leaning on the government along with the 46 million or so other uninsured Americans the Democrats are trying to cover.”

“As the debate over ObamaCare raged, Americans were assured by the president himself that those of us who like our insurance plans would be able to keep them. But workers will not only lose their employers’ plans due to their employers’ increasing costs under the law, they will also be losing coverage because carriers are dropping some of the policy options they offer.

WellPoint, Cigna, CoventryOne, Humana, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Aetna and Golden Rule have, for instance, announced that they will no longer sell child-only policies under the Democrats’ health care regime.”

In some cases — the Principal Group and its 840,000 customers is one example — carriers are dropping out of the health insurance market entirely.

Meanwhile, McDonald’s and 29 other companies told Washington that ObamaCare was going to force them to drop insurance coverage for some workers. Had those companies not been granted federal waivers from the requirement that they raise the minimum annual benefits of their low-cost health plans, roughly 1 million Americans would have been added to the rolls of the uninsured.

Don’t think it can’t get worse, because under the Democrats’ ill-thought-out plan, it will. Large pieces of ObamaCare that will make the system painfully expensive and increase federal intrusion still haven’t become law. The next Congress needs to get focused fast on stopping the march toward costly, substandard care.”

Economic Effects of the March Health Legislation

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11945/USC10-22-10.pdf

Congressional Budget Office director Doug Elmendorf on Obama Care: ObamaCare includes work disincentives likely to shrink the amount of labor used in the economy.

Factoring in additional demand for workers in health care and insurance, CBO estimates that “the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a percent,” he said. (For perspective, half a percent of current payrolls is 651,000 jobs, though the impact would show up in both fewer jobs and fewer hours worked.)

Obamacare R.I.P.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/29/obamacare-rip/

Perhaps the most comprehensive critique can be found in ”Fresh Medicine,” a new book by Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat. In a year in which he isn’t even running for re-election, Mr. Bredesen pulls few punches. ”Congress and the Obama administration have just added over 30 million people into an obsolete and broken system and done little to address the underlying problems; in multiple ways, they’ve made them worse,” he wrote. ”Worse” is an understatement. Lower quality health care, higher costs, more complexity and more regulations would be Obamacare’s legacy.

 The American people have a chance to stop it from happening. Just as the drubbing of congressional Democrats in 1994 in the wake of the Clinton gun ban has kept overt gun-control measures out of the national spotlight, the 2010 drubbing could kill the desire for health care nationalization once and for all. Already, 71 percent of voters in Missouri have approved a ballot measure that will block implementation of Obamacare at the state level. Big votes tomorrow on similar constitutional amendments in Arizona, Colorado and Oklahoma will make it clear once and for all that Obamacare is not long for this world.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om  <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>,  <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

America, You are at a tipping point and you have your last change to stop it – Part 5

1 november, 2010

                 Some points on the economic situation

Since 2007 the debt has increased by $5 Trillion Dollars It’s the crime of the century!

                                As of today 13:15 EDT

                                        And California

19 Facts About The Deindustrialization Of America That Will Make You Weep

http://www.businessinsider.com/deindustrialization-factory-closing-2010-9

– The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001

– The United States has lost a total of about 5.5 million manufacturing jobs since October 2000.

– The United States has lost a whopping 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.

– As of the end of 2009, less than 12 million Americans worked in manufacturing. The last time less than 12 million Americans were employed in manufacturing was in 1941.

– Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.

– In 2008, 1.2 billion cellphones were sold worldwide. So how many of them were manufactured inside the United States? Zero.

– Dell Inc. has announced plans to dramatically expand its operations in China with an investment of over $100 billion over the next decade.

– Dell has announced that it will be closing its last large U.S. manufacturing facility in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Approximately 900 jobs will be lost.

– If our trade deficit with China increases at its current rate, the U.S. economy will lose over half a million jobs this year alone.

– As of the end of July, the trade deficit with China had risen 18 percent compared to the same time period a year ago.

– The Census Bureau says 43.6 million Americans are now living in poverty, which is the highest number of poor Americans in the 51 years that records have been kept.

So how many tens of thousands more factories do we need to lose before we do something about it?

How many millions more Americans are going to become unemployed before we all admit that we have a very, very serious problem on our hands?

How many more trillions of dollars are going to leave the country before we realize that we are losing wealth at a pace that is killing our economy?

How many once great manufacturing cities are going to become rotting war zones like Detroit before we understand that we are committing national economic suicide?

The deindustrialization of America is a national crisis.  It needs to be treated like one.

If you disagree with this article, I have a direct challenge for you.  If anyone can explain how a deindustrialized America has any kind of viable economic future, please do so below in the comments section.

America is in deep, deep trouble folks.  It is time to It is time to wake up.”

18 Iconic Products That America Doesn’t Make Anymore

http://www.businessinsider.com/basic-products-america-doesnt-make-2010-10#

Rawlings baseballs, Etch-a-sketch, Chuck Taylors shoes, Stainless steel rebar, Mattel toys, Minivans, Vending machines, Levi jeans, Radio Flyer’s Red Wagon, Televisions, Cell phones, Railroad parts, Dell computers, Canned sardines, Incandescent light bulb, Forks, spoons, and knives.

”Buying American” used to be a popular political gesture. But these days it’s becoming impossible. “

Is this the end result if present political and economic trend continues? “Why do great nations fail?…. They all make the same mistakes. .. He He Now they work for us.”

Chinese Professor

79% of Private Sector Job Growth Over Last 5 Years Has Been in Texas 

http://www.willisms.com/archives/2010/09/trivia_tidbit_o_870.html

Stimulus Failure: 48 Out of 50 States Lost Jobs Since Democrats Trillion Dollar Stimulus

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/10/22/stimulus-failure-48-out-of-50-states-lost-jobs-since-democrats-trillion-dollar-stimulus-plansince/

“In total, over 2 million jobs have been eliminated, in contrast to the over 3 million more jobs Americans were promised if Democrats’ 2009 stimulus plan passed. The only place in America that has exceeded its projected job growth following Democrats’ stimulus is Washington, D.C.”

The Adult Recession

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-adult-recession

“The study, ”The Adult Recession: Age-Adjusted Unemployment at Post-War Highs,” adjusts the current unemployment rate to account for demographic differences and finds that the unemployment rate has not fallen below 10.8 percent in the last 12 months. During the worst episode of the recession of the 1980s — the second half of 1982 and the first half of 1983 — unemployment passed 10 percent for 7 months.

The analysis notes that the population is older today than it was in the 1980s, which has the effect of lowering today’s unemployment rate relative to the past. Since they change jobs more frequently and are more likely to move in and out of the labor market, Young people have a higher unemployment rate than older workers. Adjusting for this older workforce shows that the United States is experiencing the weakest labor market since the Great Depression.”

60 Minutes Shock Report: National Unemployed and Underemployed 17.5%; California 22%

The video here: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6987699n

”When you take into account the underemployed as well as the unemployed, the national rate hits 17% and California a staggering 22%.

To put a face on the realities of the underemployed in America under Obamanomincs, reporter Scott Pelley spoke with a fiber-optics engineering manager who has been looking for work for over a year.  He just took a job working at a Target.   20% of the unemployed in America have college degrees.

According to the report, 1/3 of the unemployed have been out of work for over a year.  This hasn’t happened since the Great Depression.

Licensing to Kill

A new study shows how city regulations harm small business.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304741404575564171912051184.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

“When most people think of occupations requiring fingerprints and police reports, corner bookshop owners don’t spring to mind. Try telling that to Los Angeles, where many used booksellers are required by law to get a police permit and take a thumbprint from every 40-something trying to offload his collection of French poetry.

That’s one scene from a study to be released this week by the Institute for Justice, which has collected dozens of examples of regulations choking economic growth by taxing and over-licensing small businesses. In a survey of eight major cities, the study found that entrepreneurs routinely face obstacles …”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om  <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>,  <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

America, You are at a tipping point and you have your last change to stop it – Part 4

31 oktober, 2010

                          Dirtiest election ever

And the democrats are TRULY desperate and have taken the election campaign to absolute rock bottom levels. All in the name of keeping total power.

2010: Democrats Set Records for Dirtiest Election Ever

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/campaign-dirty-tricks-tea/2010/10/24/id/374719?s=al&promo_code=B036-1

“While Republicans have been taking aim at Democrats voting record, including their backing a $787 billion stimulus that failed to produce the promised jobs and a $500 billion cut to Medicare for Seniors, Democrats have gotten mean with ad hominen attacks.”

”It’s a political game played by both sides of the aisle in every election, of course. But there are indications the midterm election of 2010 is emerging as one of the dirtiest races ever with most of the mud flying from Democratic ramparts.”

The Democrats are wary of trying to brag about anything, given the bad mood and the recession,” said Eugene Kiely, an official with the FactCheck.org watchdog. ”So they have done relatively few positive ads.

It’s been attack from the beginning,” he told The Huffington Post.”

New York Times: Democrats Backing Fake Tea Party Candidates

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/harry-reid-scott-ashjian/2010/10/24/id/374718?s=al&promo_code=B036-1

“Increasingly desperate and fearful of a GOP takeover of Congress, the Democratic Party is secretly supporting fake tea party and other third-party candidates in the hopes of diverting votes from Republican contenders.”

Democrats Back Third Parties to Siphon Votes

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/us/politics/23dems.html?_r=1

“Seeking any advantage in their effort to retain control of Congress, Democrats are working behind the scenes in a number of tight races to bolster long-shot third-party candidates who have platforms at odds with the Democratic agenda but hold the promise of siphoning Republican votes.

The efforts are taking place across the country with varying degrees of stealth. And in many cases, they seem to hold as much risk as potential reward for Democrats, prompting accusations of hypocrisy and dirty tricks from Republicans and the third-party movements that are on the receiving end of the unlikely, and sometimes unwelcome, support.“

In Pennsylvania, the Democratic candidate for a suburban Philadelphia House seat, Bryan Lentz, admitted this week that his volunteers helped Jim Schneller — a prominent skeptic of President Obama’s citizenship — collect petitions to run against Mr. Lentz and his Republican opponent, Pat Meehan.

“It is one of the dirtiest moves,” said Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, a vice chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “It’s not as though the Democrats are playing to compete against the third party — they’re helping to build the third party up to make those votes not count.”  Calling it “a concerted effort,” Mr. McCarthy added, “In Congressional races, it could steer the tide for the majority.”

“In other efforts, Democrats have tried to keep a lower profile, though they have not always succeeded.

Democrat Dirty Tricks: A Primer on Stealing Elections

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/democrat_dirty_tricks_a_primer.html

“Democrats are desperate to stop the red tide spreading from the heart of the nation and heading toward the coasts. They are eager to preserve and protect their liberal agenda and extend it in the years to come. They fear that Republican ascendancy in the House might lead to the defunding of several elements of ObamaCare and thus put it on life support until they can deliver the coup de grace in 2012 under a veto-proof majority or a new president.

Democrats are reaching into their bag of tricks. They are going beyond garden-variety tactics such as push polls and misrepresenting their own records, positions, and even identities (including stripping their party designation, the Scarlet D, from ads; hiding the fact that they are incumbents; denying one’s paternity, as in the case of Harry Reid’s son, who went the way of Cher during his campaign and used just his first name, Rory; running away from Barack Obama and their own votes on ObamaCare and the stimulus; pledging to vote to repeal ObamaCare and extend tax cuts for one and all; misrepresenting the views of their opponents; and portraying themselves as Blue Dogs despite being Pelosi Lapdogs). And, of course, they are postponing ethics trials of prominent Democrats until after November 2. “

“Desperate times call for desperate measures, and we are beginning to see the Democrats start to rely on ”dirty tricks” to spoil the fun (because if you have to run from the policies that are destroying your party’s popularity, you have to resort to all means, fair and foul — and mostly foul — to win). Politics is war by another means, and when the Democrats are led by the Cook County Gang that could not play straight, all sorts of tactics will emerge.

Let’s take a tour across the political landscape and catch some highlights:

The Department of Justice, The Secretary of State Project, Smear Campaigns, Death to the Tea Party, False Flags”

Chairman Ceasar and the Dirty Election

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2010/10/broward_democratic_chairman_mitch_ceasar.php

No more double standards

http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulDriessen/2010/10/30/no_more_double_standards/page/full/

False, misleading or fraudulent claims have long brought the wrath of juries, judges and government agencies down on perpetrators. So have substandard manufacturing practices.

Who could oppose following the rules, making quality products and being honest? But shouldn’t these values apply where far more is at stake than a few companies, pills, baseball records or bad role models? Shouldn’t we demand that these rules apply to people and actions that have unprecedented impact on lives, livelihoods, liberties and communities throughout the country?

Can we afford to continue having double standards that let government officials violate basic standards of honesty and accountability that they apply “vigorously” to citizens and companies? Why should legislators, regulators and investigators be exempt from rules they devise and impose on everyone else? Shouldn’t we teach our kids that government officials mustn’t lie to us, either?

You can find out how your congressman voted here:

http://www.leagueofamericanvoters.com/CongressmenVotes.aspx

The shameful and purposeful mishandling of the military votes:

Military Vote in Question After DOJ Gives Illinois ‘Pass’ on MOVE Act, Advocacy Group Warns

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/25/military-vote-question-doj-gives-illinois-pass-act-advocacy-group-warns/

“Military voters from the land of Lincoln could be shut out of the midterm election after the Justice Department reached an agreement with Illinois that gave the state ”a pass” for violating federal election law , an advocacy group warned Monday. “

“Eric Eversole, a former Justice voting section attorney who runs the nonprofit Military Voter Protection Project, told FoxNews.com the deal effectively lets wayward Illinois election officials off the hook and does little to ensure the state’s military voters get their ballots in time.

”For at least 29 counties, there were absolutely no consequences,” he said. ”Illinois is precisely the reason why you can’t wait until a week before the election to try and resolve a clear violation of military voting rights.”

No Justice for Military Voters in Illinois 

http://www.mvpproject.org/pressrelease_102510.html

New York City and Several New York Counties Snub Military Voters

http://www.mvpproject.org/pressrelease_100810.html

“Washington, D.C. – Nearly six weeks after receiving a waiver of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, which allowed New York to mail absentee ballots to our troops no later than October 1, 2010, the New York State Board of Elections admitted on Tuesday that New York City and several counties failed to meet the deadline and still have not mailed their absentee ballots. [Read more: http://www.fvap.gov/resources/media/ny_delivery_cert.pdf%5D With only 25 days before the election, thousands of New York military voters now stand on the brink of having their voices silenced in the upcoming elections.”

The Military Voter Protection Project

http://www.mvpproject.org/

The right to vote is one of the most fundamental rights of American democracy. It has been defended for well over 200 years by the sacrifices our men and women in uniform. Yet, when it comes to their right to vote—our military members’ right to choose the next Commander in Chief or their elected representatives—their voices have long been silenced by an electoral process that has failed them. That silence was most evident in the 2008 when thousands of absentee military ballots never received by the military voter or received after the election. The MVP Project is here to defend our military members’ right to vote and to provide them with the very right that they defend

Mayor Bloomberg Slams Board of Elections for Failure to Mail Military Ballots

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/11/mayor-bloomberg-slams-board-of-elections-for-failure-to-mail-ballots/

“Bloomberg told Fox News. ”We send our young men and women overseas to fight and to die for us and we don’t care enough to make sure they get the right to exercise their franchise ? That’s what they’re over there fighting for as much as anything else.” 

EXCLUSIVE: New York Violating MOVE Act

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/10/exclusive-new-york-violating-act/

Maryland may keep fighting in court to ignore military voters

http://electionlawcenter.com/2010/10/30/maryland-may-keep-fighting-in-court-to-ignore-military-voters.aspx

“Not only did Maryland fight like crazy to deprive soldiers of their constitutional right to vote for state candidates, they might appeal today’s victory for military voters against Maryland.  I wonder if the Baltimore Sun will FOIA how much it is costing the taxpayers to litigate so as to avoid mailing ballots to military voters. But Maryland doesn’t seem to be a state that places high priority on military voters.  They are more interested in registering 16 year olds to vote and where you can hunt ducks.   More on Maryland’s unfortunate position. “

At DOJ, Military Voting Rights Hang in the Balance

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/at-doj-military-voting-rights-hang-in-the-balance/?singlepage=true

Protecting Military Voting: A Blue Star Mom Speaks Out

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/protecting-military-voting-a-blue-star-mom-speaks-out/

Why PJM’s Military Voting Monitoring Project Is So Important

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-pjms-military-voting-monitoring-project-is-so-important/

“Eric Holder’s DOJ isn’t interested in making sure our military members’ votes are protected and counted, so PJM is gathering evidence to ensure that problems are reported properly and will be fixed.

Pajamas Media is asking military voters who had problems getting their ballots to send their stories to story@pajamasmedia.com. Why? Because the MOVE Act may likely be rewritten next year, and information about problems you experienced will be essential to get it right in 2012.”

”Sixteen states and territories, at least, blew it and didn’t mail ballots on time. The Maine secretary of state, amazingly, told Fox News last week that compliance has been “pretty impressive.” I’d hate to see what he thinks is pretty “awful.”

”But the Eric Holder Justice Department deserves enormous blame. As far back as February, a manager at the Voting Section told state election officials that the new law was vague and the DOJ didn’t really want to sue anyone. State election officials were flabbergasted and acted accordingly. They assumed compliance with the new law wasn’t a big deal to the DOJ, the agency charged with enforcement.

Then things really got bad. In the spring, the DOJ never provided the Pentagon waiver guidance despite the Pentagon’s repeated requests. And how many lawsuits did the DOJ file despite the multiple states that were facially out of compliance with too-late primary elections? Zero. The summer dribbled away with analysis, talk, and chatter instead of action.”

Disgrace: DOJ Fails to Protect Military Voting Rights

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/disgrace-doj-fails-to-protect-military-voting-rights/

 “In 2008, some 17,000 servicemen and servicewomen mailed home completed ballots that were never counted. The DOJ barely lifted a finger to prevent or prosecute this travesty. What will happen in 2010?”

Don’t Ask, Don’t Vote

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/551738/201010261904/Dont-Ask-Dont-Vote.htm

”Election ’10: The president’s home state gets a pass from the Justice Department on ensuring its soldiers overseas can vote. An administration obsessed with gays in the military doesn’t care about voting rights for GIs.

You can call it a tragedy of errors, a perfect storm of incompetent and uncaring bureaucrats, or you can call it a deliberate attempt to steal what looks to be a close race for both governor and U.S. senator in President Obama’s home state by disenfranchising its servicemen overseas, votes likely to tilt Republican.”

Meanwhile, the Chicago Board of Elections hand-delivers ballots to inmates in Cook County Jail. The board doesn’t even wait for the inmates to apply — it brings the applications with the ballots! More than 2,600 inmates have cast ballots — strikingly similar to the 2,600 soldiers who will likely not receive a ballot for Tuesday’s election.”

Holder puts felons over soldiers. The Justice Department obstructs military voting rights

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/28/holder-puts-felons-over-soldiers/

“Obama Justice Department outrages never cease. The politically charged gang led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is more interested in helping felons vote than in helping the military to vote. Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, has put a legislative hold on the already troubled nomination of James M. Cole to be deputy attorney general until the attorney general ensures full protection for voting rights of our military (and associated civilian personnel) stationed abroad. The senator is right to raise a ruckus.

Mr. Cornyn co-authored a 2009 law mandating that states mail absentee ballots to military voters at least 45 days before the election. Yet, as former Justice Department lawyer Eric Eversole first reported in The Washington Times last week, the department seems to be encouraging states to apply for waivers so they won’t have to follow that law. More than 17,000 Americans serving overseas were denied the vote in 2008 – but, presumably because military personnel are thought to lean conservative, the liberal Obama administration is in no hurry to correct the situation.

The Justice Department is so unenthusiastic about military voting that its website still lists the old requirement for a shorter 30-day military voting window, rather than the current law mandating 45 days. On the other hand, the Justice Department has no legislative mandate whatsoever to involve itself with helping felons to vote, but its website devotes a large section – 2,314 words – to advising felons how to regain voting privileges.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om  <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>,  <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

America, You are at a tipping point and you have your last change to stop it – Part 3

30 oktober, 2010

                                 The voter fraud

You can help fight the vote fraud and rigging of the election: There’s an app where you can report about voter fraud, intimidation, or other irregular election activity. Download it here: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ireport2010/id398437175?mt=8

There is also this app: To help identify, report and track suspected incidents of voter fraud and intimidation. http://americanmajorityaction.org/voterfraudapp/

They also have a guide on voter fraud: https://americanmajority.box.net/shared/y3i7q7efkb

“We’re looking for citizen journalists/poll watchers from across the country to help us report on cases of voter fraud, intimidation or other voting misconduct. Sign up using the form below to get involved.” Sign up here: http://pajamasmedia.com/voter-fraud-watch-2/

Read also: Voter Fraud Watch: A Primer on What to Watch For. Our resident expert on election law explains the ins and outs of how to detect voter fraud http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/voter-fraud-watch-a-primer-on-what-to-watch-for/?singlepage=true

Election Fraud Uncovered by Patriotic Citizens … Who Promptly Get Sued

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/election-fraud-uncovered-by-patriotic-citizens-who-promptly-get-sued/

“Election watchers True the Vote have found disturbing amounts of fraud in Harris County, Texas. Rather than support their important work, the Texas Democratic Party (among others) is suing them. “

“Talk about denial! A group of liberal activists is making the media rounds, assuring reporters and editors that election fraud is a fairy tale. Nothing serious, they assert, nothing to see here. Too bad for them that citizens in Houston, energized by the Tea Party movement, have formed a group called True the Vote. Their hard work has demonstrated that, in some parts of the country at least, our election system is still infested with problems.”

“True the Vote reports that at least four noncitizens have been registered to vote in Harris County. The group provided Justice with the actual voter registration forms where applicants marked “NO” to the question: “Are you a U.S. Citizen?” The group also provided the voter registration numbers of these confessed noncitizens. Yes, astonishingly, Harris County registered them to vote anyway. They are now on the rolls and able to participate in the upcoming midterm elections.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 was supposed to stop this from happening. But this federal legislation is only as good as the Justice Department’s willingness to enforce it. If Harris County is registering noncitizens, then it is violating numerous provisions of federal law, including those that prohibit the registration of foreigners to vote in federal elections.

True the Vote uncovered other types of fraud as well. The group forwarded to DOJ seven voter registration forms with applicant names different from the signature name. For example: Ta’mackayn Harrison’s application was signed by “Bra Kelly.” Jason King’s was signed by “Jemma Noel.” Yet Harris County inexplicably approved all of these applications. Jason King, aka Jemma Noel, is now on the voter rolls in Houston.

The citizens group also found multiple registrations for individual voters. For example, True the Vote provided the Justice Department government documents showing that at least four persons, including Jose Gomez and Victor Nickerson, had registered to vote multiple times successfully.

These problems were found by True the Vote in just a small sampling of the county’s voter registration list. How many other, similar problems would turn up in a comprehensive review? Don’t forget: every vote counts. Which also means that every legitimate vote cancelled out by a fraudulent vote should be a concern to anyone interested in fair elections and protecting the right to vote.”

Stunner. AZ Group Accused of Massive Voter Fraud Is Offshoot of SEIU

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/10/stunner-az-group-accused-of-massive-voter-fraud-is-offshoot-of-seiu/

“What the Yuma Sun did not tell you is that over 65% of these last minute registrations were invalid due to the registrant not being a citizen, a wrong/invalid address, or a false signature.”

Raul Grijalva fakes “terrorist attack” to cover up Yuma voter fraud story

http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=3376

“Here is a perfect example of political cynicism from the gangster Congressman in Arizona’s 7th District.

Just hours after the Yuma Sun reports that 3000 voter registrations had been dumped at the Yuma County Recorder’s Office by a group affiliated with the SEIU (with most of them subsequently found to be fraudulent), Raul Grijalva’s office received a suspicious package covered in swastikas with a white powder inside.

Now the story about the suspicious package — the “terrorist attack” as Grijalva puts it — has gone national, and the voter fraud story has gone unnoticed by the mainstream media. How convenient, right?

Raul Grijalva part-time staffer Emily Romero has repeatedly bragged to Democratic insiders that the campaign concocts these threats to take attention away from bad publicity. In this case, the campaign decided to fake a “terrorist attack” on themselves to cover up the story of voter fraud that had just broken. “

Watch this video of a poll watcher’s story about what she has seen during early voting in Houston, Texas.  This is eyewitness testimony to voter fraud in the form of poll worker casting votes on behalf of voters,

Tea Partiers Outraged Over Democratic Tea Party Plant’s Fraudulent Google Ads

http://bigjournalism.com/libertychick/2010/10/29/tea-partiers-outraged-over-democratic-tea-party-plants-fraudulent-google-ads/

“Tea Party groups in New Jersey are outraged over ads that have mysteriously surfaced in support of a supposed Tea Party candidate.  The sponsored ads on Google are being served up all over the web, in places like BlogTalkRadio, in support of one Peter DeStefano, and direct viewers to the website of njteapartycoalition.org.

The problem is, the NJ Tea Party Coalition, the owners of that website, did not purchase any such ads.

It’s one thing to use dirty Democratic tricks to get on the ballot in an effort to siphon votes away from the Republican candidate, former NFL football player Jon Runyan.  But it’s another to fraudulently represent yourself as another existing Tea Party organization in online advertising campaigns, even using that group’s URL to make it seem as though that group has endorsed your fake candidate.

So, the latest question still remains.  Who is fraudulently using the NJ Tea Party Coalition’s website address in Google advertisements?”

See also

Tea Party candidate Peter DeStefano was backed by John Adler campaign

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20101008/UPDATES01/101008015/Report-Tea-Party-candidate-Peter-DeStefano-was-backed-by-John-Adler-campaign

Stunner. SEIU Offshoot ‘Mi Familia Vota’ Caught With 6,000 Bogus Colorado Voter Registrations

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/10/stunner-seiu-offshoot-mi-familia-vota-caught-with-6000-bogus-colorado-voter-registrations/

“Do you remember when Barack Obama said: “The SEIU Agenda Is My Agenda”?

The same SEIU offshoot group that is accused of turning in thousands of bogus voter registrations in Arizona has come under fire in Colorado.Mi Familia Vota is accused of turning in 6,000 bogus voter registrations in Colorado.”

SEIU using multiple non-profits to push Immigrant votes – Documentation http://huntercantor.com/seiu-and-my-familia-vota-connections-documentation/

Block The Vote

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/551736/201010261904/Block-The-Vote.htm

Rule Of Law: Suspicious voting-machine malfunctions and cheating candidates are the stuff of banana republics, not America. With Democrats about to suffer historic losses, is our election’s integrity in question?

‘It can’t happen here,” most Americans would say about the chances of voting one way and seeing your votes recorded the opposite. But that’s what happened in early voting in North Carolina’s unfortunately named Craven County last week.

Voter Sam Laughinghouse of New Bern found that ”an electronic voting machine completed his straight-party ticket for the opposite of what he intended,” the New Bern Sun Journal reported.

Laughinghouse ”pushed the button to vote Republican in all races, but the voting machine screen displayed a ballot with all Democrats checked,” the local paper reported.He cleared the screen and tried again with the same result.”

Election personnel eventually straightened it out, but clearly a less observant Republican voter would have inadvertently voted for every Democrat on his ballot. Chuck Tyson, chairman of the Craven County Republican Party, told the Sun Journal he ”got two or three calls” from voters experiencing the same problem and is not satisfied with state election officials’ efforts to fix it.

In Boulder City, Nev., meanwhile, where voters use computer screens, another disturbing episode was reported by Fox News. When voter Joyce Ferrara and her husband went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, they — and several others, according to Ferrara — found that Democratic incumbent Harry Reid’s name was already checked. The county registrar’s explanation: The high-tech voting screens are sensitive.

The Nevada case is especially disturbing because the seat of the most powerful Democrat in the Senate is at stake.”

“Power is hard to give up, but when those in power compromise campaign and election rules, we cross a sacrosanct threshold.”

The union SEIU controls voting machines in Clark County, NV and the ballots are pre-marked for Harry Reid. What a coincidence wouldn’t you say? Especially since SEIU are spending $44 million of their member’s fees (and the members have no say in this) on helping democrats. How reassuring that the same people are in charge of the voting machines.

They have also spent $225,000.00 of their member’s fees to fight Sharron Angle (R).

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/independent-expenditures/candidate/sharron-e-angle/service-employees-international-union

SEIU Controls ‘Glitchy’ Voter Machines in Clark County, NV

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/10/26/the-seiu-harry-reid-and-voting-problems/

The SEIU, Harry Reid, And Voting Problems

http://netrightdaily.com/2010/10/the-seiu-harry-reid-and-voting-problems/

“According to Joyce Ferrara who was an eyewitness to this strange ballot ordeal, the problem was widespread, “One person that’s a fluke. Two, that’s strange. But several within a five minute period of time — that’s wrong.”

It is particularly troubling that Clark County has put the uber left-wing SEIU Local 1107 in charge of their voting machines.”

Ballots In Nevada Are Cast For Reid Before Voters Vote

http://netrightdaily.com/2010/10/ballots-in-nevada-are-cast-for-reid-before-voters-vote/

Nevada Voters Complain Of Problems At Polls

http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/25511115/detail.html

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om  <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>,  <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

America, You are at a tipping point and you have your last change to stop it – Part 2

29 oktober, 2010

                                The campaign

Notice, this video was first published on January 3 2010 long before the Obama Care bill was passed

America Rising: An Open Letter to Democrat Politicians

”America elected you on a promise of hope and change. We trusted you. So we elected you. We regret it. So in 2010…. You Will Lose Big. No more taxes. No more spending. No more socialism. We tried to warn you. But you wouldn’t listen. So now you will pay.We’re taking our country back. From radical leftists and liberals. We’re coming after you.

Blue collar democrats, libertarians, independents, and conservatives. We love our country. We are proud of our founders. And we will fight for our traditions. We don’t want your revolution! “

America Rising Part 2- A Call for the Republican Party to Join!

This is your last chance, Republican Party, to prove to the American voter that you are serious and mean what you say. No more co-opting freshmen to model them to stooges. (read John Trent (R) in WP July 18: “As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them”)

 

Frank Caprio (D) Gubernatorial candidate for Rhode Island:

“I never asked for President Obama’s endorsement. You know, he can take his endorsement and shove it as far as I’m concerned. The reality here is that Rhode Islanders are hurting. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. We had one of the worst floods in the history of the United States a few months back. And President Obama didn’t even do a flyover of Rhode Island like President Bush did when New Orleans had their problems. He ignored us, and now he is coming into Rhode Island and treating us like an ATM machine.”

 

Obama, the dude in chief

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/28/obama-the-dude-in-chief/

“Another laugh at Mr. Obama’s expense came when he was responding to a line of questioning from Mr. Stewart that encapsulated the liberal critique of his presidency; namely, that he hasn’t done enough to bring about the promised ”fundamental transformation” of America. For the left, there is a widening audacity gap. Would Mr. Obama have to change his slogan, ”Yes, we can?” the president began. ”I think what I would say is ‘yes, we can, but … .’ ” At that point, Mr. Stewart and the crowd began laughing. The president dude looked a little foolish. Hope and change died with that ”but.”

Is America Really A 50-50 Nation? Not Even Close, New Polling Finds

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/551823/201010271918/Is-America-Really-A-50-50-Nation-Not-Even-Close-New-Polling-Finds.htm

“Here’s a well-kept secret: Americans are in overwhelming agreement on social issues. Here’s a not-so-well-kept secret. Many in the media and politics have absolutely no idea.”

Campaign’s Big Spender

Public-Employees Union Now Leads All Groups in Independent Election Outlays

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats’ hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.

We’re the big dog,” said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME’s political operations. ”But we don’t like to brag.”

A recent Gallup poll piled on bad news for President Obama. At the beginning of 2010 the president enjoyed support from 69% of Hispanics. By May that number was down to 57%. Now just 55% of Hispanics support the president and his liberal agenda.

But what’s going on behind the numbers could possibly be a harbinger of doom for Obama’s re-election in 2012. Across the country conservative Latino organizations are springing up as fast as illegal immigrants are streaming across the border. And these organizations are not content to just conduct meetings and complain about the liberal takeover in Washington. Some are taking action. In Dallas, Amigos de Patriots is launching an online and TV ad campaign called “Vote your Values, Vote Conservative.” The idea is to remind Hispanics that their ancestors fled countries where prosperity was killed by left-wing regimes. The 30-second spots also take on social issues like abortion, a practice that is dear to liberals and Democrats but that the Latino community at large finds offensive.

A chart to make Democrats’ blood run cold

http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/24/a-chart-to-make-a-democrats-blood-run-cold/

In 2006, 17 categories favored Democrats, which helped them take control of the House and Senate from Republicans. Democrats picked up six Senate seats and 30 House seats.

In the Pew Poll, 23 of the 28 categories of voters now favor Republicans. What’s more, 22 of the 28 categories support the GOP by 49 percent or more. There are only four categories of voters that are under 40 percent: those making less than $30,000 a year, at 39 percent; voters who are unaffiliated with a religion, at 37 percent; black voters, at 10 percent; and Democrats, at 8 percent.

What is most remarkable is how far some categories have swung away from Democrats and toward the GOP.

Democrats have lost a significant advantage with women voters, who supported Democrats by a 48 to 41 percent margin in 2006, but who have now flipped to supporting the GOP by 49 to 43 percent.

Voters over 65 years old were for Democrats by a 48 to 42 percent margin four years ago. They now favor Republicans by 52 to 38 percent. That’s a 20 point swing.

Perhaps most damaging for Democrats, they have suffered huge losses among Independents. Democrats were up 7 points in 2006, by 42 to 35 percent. They now are down 19 points, 49 to 30 percent. That’s a 26-point swing.

The poll here:”

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/666.pdf

Tea Party to the Rescue How the GOP was saved from Bush and the establishment.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304023804575566503565327356.html

”The first: the tea party is not a ”threat” to the Republican Party, the tea party saved the Republican Party. In a broad sense, the tea party rescued it from being the fat, unhappy, querulous creature it had become, a party that didn’t remember anymore why it existed, or what its historical purpose was. The tea party, with its energy and earnestness, restored the GOP to itself.

In a practical sense, the tea party saved the Republican Party in this cycle by not going third-party. It could have. The broadly based, locally autonomous movement seems to have made a rolling decision, group by group, to take part in Republican primaries and back Republican hopefuls. (According to the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, four million more Republicans voted in primaries this year than Democrats, the GOP’s highest such turnout since 1970. I wonder who those people were?)

Because of this, because they did not go third-party, Nov. 2 is not going to be a disaster for the Republicans, but a triumph.

The tea party did something the Republican establishment was incapable of doing: It got the party out from under George W. Bush. The tea party rejected his administration’s spending, overreach and immigration proposals, among other items, and has become only too willing to say so. In doing this, the tea party allowed the Republican establishment itself to get out from under Mr. Bush: ”We had to, boss, it was a political necessity!” They released the GOP establishment from its shame cringe.

And they not only freed the Washington establishment, they woke it up. That establishment, composed largely of 50- to 75-year-olds who came to Washington during the Reagan era in a great rush of idealism, in many cases stayed on, as they say, not to do good but to do well. They populated a conservative infrastructure that barely existed when Reagan was coming up: the think tanks and PR groups, the media outlets and governmental organizations. They did not do what conservatives are supposed to do, which is finish their patriotic work and go home, taking the knowledge and sophistication derived from Washington and applying it to local problems. (This accounts in part for the esteem in which former Bush budget chief and current Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is held. He went home.) “

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om  <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>,  <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

America, You are at a tipping point and you have your last change to stop it – Part 1

29 oktober, 2010

On a personal note: The material for this post ended up being nearly 60 pages full of quotes, facts, figures, links, videos, reference material etc. Why? Because this is an important subject – directly for the future of the American people and your way of life, indirectly for the rest of the world. But this is way too much to make a meaningful and readable blog post. So I had to drastically cut it down and split it up. My only hope is that I got it reasonable right, you are the judge of that.

So I split this post into different parts: You must vote, The campaign, The voter fraud, Dirtiest election ever, Some points on the economic situation, The Government, All these lies about Obama Care, The speech by Robert  Bidinotto and the article by P. J. O’Rourke

                               You must vote

So go and vote for some you can trust (yeah I know it’s hard), some one that upholds the constitution and knows what it actually means (yeah, there are not many left), some one that want to rein in the Big Government Agenda and REALLY means it (yeah I know, there are many turncoats), and some one that want to protect YOUR liberty, freedom and the American way of life (yeah, that’s another hard one).

There is in the end only one way you can judge them – By their actions.

Your vote REALLY MATTERS! This time more than ever!

Sooo much is at stake this time – The constitution, the American way of life with freedom and free markets. America is at a crucial crossroads.

Do you want a government for the elites, of the elites and by the elites?

Or a government for the people, of the people and by the people?

It is YOUR CHOICE! A very clear choice! You have to get out and flood the voting booths November 2.

And if you don’t choose, it’s going to be the former.

The turnout of voting-age population  in the mid term elections 2006 – 37,1%, and 2002 – 37.0% was pathetic and a joke. 63 % of the voting age population apparently doesn’t care what is happening to their country.

If you don’t wake up now when will you ever do? You have to stand up for freedom and liberty. Or sit back and let the American dream become a nightmare.

Five quotations come to mind. All apply describing the present situation:

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826.

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” Eleanor Roosevelt (1884 – 1962) from her book ”This Is My Story”, 1937.

It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say … that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.”  Etienne de la Boetie’s (French judge, writher, philosopher and “politician” during the16 century), The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin 1706–1790, was written sometime shortly before February 17,1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly.

Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom”. – Albert Einstein

As I wrote in my post Why, Mr President, are you deliberately destroying the American way and committing economic harakiri? and  Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 367:

 “President Obama, one of the men behind the Biggest Heist in American History – Cap and Trade, and who at ALL COSTS want to ram through the cap and trade bill, has now put in place an administrative system that allows him, at will, to totally bypass Congress.

After the EPA, Health care bill and now the financial bill, they can sneak it trough in big chunks through administrative orders. Not the whole cap and trade bill at once, but in two, tree maybe four steps.

America, your whole system has been hijacked, and you have done nothing, so far, to stop it. What the Obama administration has done during the last one and half year makes a mockery of your constitution and the principle of separation of power.”

These are the “representatives” that rammed through the Obama Care, the financial bill, etc., against the will of the people. They don’t care about the constitution, and they don’t know the difference between the declaration of Independence and the Constitution; and they don’t care that they don’t know. (see for example my post Obama Care 30

The people in congress who voted for these bills, this is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED AND INTENDED with these bills. But to get it through Congress they gladly and willfully lied through their teeth and ears, they even gladly put their lies in writing.

Why? Because they are ramming through their political agenda which they have been waiting and planning so long for to be able do.

As I have been saying all along, it has always been a political agenda – anti human, anti freedom, anti development and anti capitalism. And this Global Warming Hysteria is part of that agenda. It has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the environment or the Earth.

All of this, as always, paid by us, the common people, in the form of taxes, high energy costs and reducing our living standard back to the Stone Age.

And these guys spends billions and TRILLIONS of $ of our tax money.

While they at the same time preach austerity, frugality and sacrifice from us, the taxpayers.

This blatant hypocrisy is so mind numbing that it would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that these people have the power to force us to obey them.

They are a truly parasitic class in the sense that Karl Marx wrote about it.

How ironic that today most of this parasitic class is leftists and so called “liberals”.

In fact, it is the PERFECT scam and heist – the more they can get you to feel guilty, the more money they earn. And the more control they get over society.

In short, it is very troubling to see a country on a path of economic and political self destruction. But if the present trend continues you are, to put it simple: toast.

It’s time for the people of America to take their country back. Otherwise the consequences for you as a country are going to be devastating. Especially for the common people.

Meanwhile, we STILL await Mr. Obama’s explanation why if his ”historic” health care law is so great for America, it’s not good enough for him and his family.

          

See also my posts:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 361

Obama Care 33 – President Obama is a willful and certified liar

https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/obama-care/

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om  <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>,  <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

The Big Money & The Global Governance/Government Agenda That Fuels Environmentalism

12 oktober, 2010

I have written many, many posts in this blog about the intimidation of people and blatant censoring of facts done in the name of ”science” and Global Warming Hysteria. And that the Global Waming Hysteria has nothing to do with saving the Earth or the environment. It has always been a political agenda.

I have written extensible (over 120 of posts) about the scam called Cap and Trade, –  the Biggest Heist in History-  where BOTH BUYER AND SELLER BENEFITS FROM CHEATING. And we, as taxpayers and consumers pay the prize. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation.

And recognize it for what it is – A GIANT FINANCIAL SCAM that puts all the burden on the common people and does nothing whatsoever for the environment.

The European model is a carnival of corruption, profiteering, speculation and multi-billion-dollar fraud. It’s done nothing to improve the environment while handing undeserved profits to big business and driving up the cost of energy to consumers.

What they are really advocating is huge price increases in the cost of energy, meaning the cost of everything.

That’s it. That’s their plan.

Anything else they say is a lie.

This is a scam to enrich the corrupt.

As always – Follow the money.

Here are some good videos on the big company, organisations and political money behind the Global Warming Hysteria.

Part 1- The Big Money & The Global Governance Agenda That Fuels Environmentalism

Part 2- The Big Business of Scaring America to Death

Part 3- Green Gold: BP, GE & the World’s First Carbon Billionaires

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om  http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

The real scientists are finally staring to revolt against the Global Warming Hysteria

9 oktober, 2010

I have written many, many posts in this blog about the intimidation of people and blatant censoring of facts done in the name of ”science” and Global Warming Hysteria. And that the Global Waming Hysteria has nothing to do with saving the Earth or the environment. It has always been a political agenda.

I have written extensible (over 120 of posts) about the scam called Cap and Trade, –  the Biggest Heist in History-  where BOTH BUYER AND SELLER BENEFITS FROM CHEATING. And we, as taxpayers and consumers pay the prize. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation.

And recognize it for what it is – A GIANT FINANCIAL SCAM that puts all the burden on the common people and does nothing whatsoever for the environment.

The European model is a carnival of corruption, profiteering, speculation and multi-billion-dollar fraud. It’s done nothing to improve the environment while handing undeserved profits to big business and driving up the cost of energy to consumers.

What they are really advocating is huge price increases in the cost of energy, meaning the cost of everything.

That’s it. That’s their plan.

Anything else they say is a lie.

This is a scam to enrich the corrupt.

As always – Follow the money.

A quote from my post Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 345:

“Since 1988, when the greatest scare the world has seen got under way, hundreds of billions of pounds have been poured into academic research projects designed not to test the CO2 warming thesis but to take it as a given fact, and to use computer models to make its impacts seem as scary as possible.

The new global ”carbon trading” market, already worth $126 billion a year, could soon be worth trillions. Governments, including our own, are calling for hundreds of billions more to be chucked into absurd ”carbon-saving” energy schemes, with the cost to be met by all of us in soaring taxes and energy bills.

With all this mighty army of gullible politicians, dutiful officials, busy carbon traders, eager ”renewables” developers and compliant, funding-hungry academics standing to benefit from the greatest perversion of the principles of true science the world has ever seen, who are we to protest that their emperor has no clothes? (How apt that that fairy tale should have been written in Copenhagen.)

Let all that fluffy white ”global warming” continue to fall from the skies, while people shiver in homes that, increasingly, they will find they can no longer afford to heat. We have called into being a true Frankenstein’s monster. It will take a mighty long time to cut it down to size.”

                     

 And as I wrote over a year ago in my post How can the Scientific Community Still Allow the Parody of “science” called Global Warming Hysteria?:

It has always baffled me that all the good scientists out there mostly in silence allow the shenanigans and charlatans of there craft to destroy the creditability of science as a whole.

A very good description in today’s The Australian of the sad state of the so called “science” behind the Global Warming Hysteria. And the medias and politicians roll in spreading this gospel.

And the censorship and intimidation from the press, media, politicians and fellow “scientists” of everyone who has opposed this hysteria.

I all along have said that this Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts, or saving the environment. It’s all a political agenda. An anti human, anti development and anti freedom agenda. They also hate the capitalistic system for obvious reasons.”

And a quote from my post Money Behind Warming Alarmism ‘Can Corrupt Anybody’

”Of course, the root of this whole thing is money,” Spann said. ”And, there is a vast amount of wealth being generated by this whole issue. And I always recommend to folks – if anyone speaks on the subject, get a disclosure and find out their financial interests in it.”

He pointed to former Vice President Al Gore as an example of how money behind climate change and global warming alarmism can perpetuate a theory that shouldn’t warrant as much merit otherwise.

”I’m not a politician, don’t understand it – I honestly don’t know,” Spann said. ”But, I will tell you that there’s a lot of people who have gotten very, very wealthy – filthy rich off this subject. I think former Vice President [Al Gore] collects a minimum of $200,000 per speech on this and all of this money – it can corrupt anybody, and I just think it’s all about money.”

                              

Well, finally, more and more real scientists are revolting against the corruption and politicization of science. The latest example is Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics.

Se also:

Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society

http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society – an important moment in science history

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/

Regarding the National Policy Statement on Climate Change of the APS Council: An Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society

http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/2009_open_letter.html

What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)”

None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake.”

Dissenting members ask APS to put their policy statement on ice due to Climategate

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/07/dissenting-members-ask-aps-to-put-their-policy-statment-on-ice-due-to-climategate/

The open letter:

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara

To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer ”explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 368: Global warming hysteria is horseshit

10 september, 2010

Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary was interviewed today by the Independent on “Global warming”:

”The scientific community has nearly always been wrong in history anyway. In the Middle Ages, they were going to excommunicate Galileo because the entire scientific community said the Earth was flat… I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can’t tell us what the fucking weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the fucking global temperatures will be in 100 years’ time. It’s horseshit.”

Hear, hear!

Interview here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-it-doesnt-exist-says-ryanair-boss-oleary-2075420.html

Global warming? It doesn’t exist, says Ryanair boss O’Leary

”Nobody can argue that there isn’t climate change. The climate’s been changing since time immemorial,” he said.

”Do I believe there is global warming? No, I believe it’s all a load of bullshit. But it’s amazing the way the whole fucking eco-warriors and the media have changed. It used to be global warming, but now, when global temperatures haven’t risen in the past 12 years, they say ‘climate change’.”

”Well, hang on, we’ve had an ice age. We’ve also had a couple of very hot spells during the Middle Ages, so nobody can deny climate change. But there’s absolutely no link between man-made carbon, which contributes less than 2 per cent of total carbon emissions [and climate change].”

He suggested scientists had invented and perpetuated the theory in order to gain research grants. ”Scientists argue there is global warming because they wouldn’t get half of the funding they get now if it turns out to be completely bogus,” he said.

”The scientific community has nearly always been wrong in history anyway. In the Middle Ages, they were going to excommunicate Galileo because the entire scientific community said the Earth was flat… I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can’t tell us what the fucking weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the fucking global temperatures will be in 100 years’ time. It’s horseshit.”

He mocked global warming campaigners, describing the United Nations as ”one of the world’s most useless organisations”, its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as ”utter tosh”, and US politician Al Gore as someone who ”couldn’t even get fucking re-elected” after a boom.

See also

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/7993367/Ryanair-boss-Michael-OLeary-denies-man-made-climate-change.html

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Obama Care 33 – President Obama is a willful and certified liar

17 juli, 2010

Together with all the people in congress who voted for this bill. This is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED AND INTENDED with this bill. But to get it through Congress they gladly and willfully lied through their teeth and ears, they even gladly put their lies in writing.

I, and many, many others told you so before the Obama  Care “reform” was rammed through at all costs  against the will of the American people.

Se my posts https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/obama-care/

We where told by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it

Well, we REALLY did find out a lot of things, and remember it’s just the beginning:

It’s going to ruin states, it’s going to be ENFORCED by IRS, close hospitals, fewer doctors, rationing (the new government agency, the Medicare Advisory Board, Section 3403 of the senate bill, that is going to decide (ration) what kind of Medicare you are going to receive), cuts in Medicare, increase the health care costs for companies by billions (and who do you think is going to pay for that?), etc. etc.

And then there were ALL these kickbacks, bribes and pork barrel spending in there to get the bill through at ALL COST.

And worst of all, the blatant hypocrisy from this new nomenklatura:

President Obama declared that the new health care law ”is going to be affecting every American family.” Except his own, of course.

The new health care law exempts the president from having to participate in it. Leadership and committee staffers in the House and Senate who wrote the bill are exempted as well.

And as I have said before:

Meanwhile, we await Mr. Obama’s explanation why if his ”historic” health care law is so great for America, it’s not good enough for him and his family.

And remember – They DELIBERATELY PULLED THE TRIGGER ON THIS LOADED GUN knowing fully well “most” of the consequences.

Here are just two examples– abortion and IRS :

This is what president Obama said on radio August 19, 2009 about abortion funding. And remember, he was talking to religious leaders. That’s why he use such “biblical language” as “bearing false witness”:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: “There are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness. But I want everyone to know what health insurance reform is all about. You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government-funding of abortion. Not true. This is all — these are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation.”

President Obama deliberately lied strait in to the faces of these religious leaders. Nice man wouldn’t you say?

“Is the ink Mr President even dry on your executive order? What is your word worth Sir?”

Remember, President Obama issued an executive order to reassure, and promise democrat Stupack and other democrat protesters so that they would vote for the bill, that the health care bill WOULD NEVER FEDERAL FUND ANY ABORTION.

The Executive order Mach 24:

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s Consistency with Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-acts-consistency-with-longst

Obama Administration Approves First Direct Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Through New High-Risk Insurance Pools

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69384

Obamacare Covers Abortion in Pennsylvania — and in New Mexico, Too  

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjRiNTU0ZjU1NmY0ZDZiZjJhY2UxYWM5N2U1YjJmZjk=

Maryland Becomes Second State to Offer Federally Funded Abortions under Obama care

Friday, July 16, 2010

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69559

New Coverage Information for Maryland Residents with Preexisting Conditions

http://marylandhealthinsuranceplan.state.md.us/mhip/news/News_20100707.html

Obamacare abortions on tap

Pennsylvania program pays the piper

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/13/obamacare-abortions-on-tap/

Where have you gone, Bart Stupak? Even more importantly, where is your voice, Kathy Dahlkemper?

These Democrats – from Michigan and Pennsylvania respectively – were two of the final six supposedly pro-life House members who voted to pass Obamacare. They sold their anti-abortion principles for the fool’s gold of an executive order purportedly banning the use of federal funds for destroying unborn children. Now comes the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), in a finding released yesterday, to show proof positive just how tarnished that fool’s gold actually is.

In Rep. Dahlkemper‘s own Keystone State, the federal government on June 28 approved rules governing $160 million in federal taxpayer money for a ”high risk” insurance program that will – repeat: absolutely, positively will – cover just about any abortion before the 24th week of pregnancy. The Pennsylvania plan submitted to the feds provides coverage for ”only” those abortions that satisfy certain state laws. But the key, applicable state law allows abortion if a single doctor decides it is necessary for reasons that include psychology, emotions or the woman’s age.

This isn’t merely a loophole you can drive a truck through; it’s a canyon you can fly through in O Force One. It’s as open an invitation to taxpayer-funded abortion as can be imagined.

What’s worse is that this high-risk insurance program evades laws that ordinarily would govern the use of both federal and Pennsylvania tax money. It skirts the executive order because the order applies only to new insurance ”exchanges” and ”community health programs,” not these purportedly high risk insurance programs. It also avoids state law 3215(c), which forbids state government funds from being used for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or threats to the mother’s life. Because this state program is to be run entirely with federal funds, not state funds, 3215(c) doesn’t apply. How clever.

When the Stupak-Dahlkemper gang sold their souls to support passage of Obamacare, both the NRLC and the pro-abortion Planned Parenthood organization dismissed the executive order. The presidential concession is so loophole-ridden and so legally unenforceable to make it only ”a symbolic gesture,” in the words of Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards.

”The Obamacare law is full of faucets that can be opened to provide abortion subsidies,” NRLC legislative director Douglas Johnson told The Washington Times yesterday. ”Regrettably, this is just the first.” It also is the one that will most directly affect Mrs. Dahlkemper‘s constituents – most notably her future constituents who won’t even be born because of this program, created directly as a result of her unconscionable vote. That’s a pretty dark legacy for a congressional freshman who campaigned as a pro-lifer.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365223062942574.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_carousel_2

Lost in Taxation

The IRS’s vast new ObamaCare powers.

JULY 17, 2010

If it seems as if the tax code was conceived by graphic artist M.C. Escher, wait until you meet the new and not improved Internal Revenue Service created by ObamaCare. What, you’re not already on a first-name basis with your local IRS agent?

National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, who operates inside the IRS, highlighted the agency’s new mission in her annual report to Congress last week. Look out below. She notes that the IRS is already ”greatly taxed”—pun intended?—”by the additional role it is playing in delivering social benefits and programs to the American public,” like tax credits for first-time homebuyers or purchasing electric cars. Yet with ObamaCare, the agency is now responsible for ”the most extensive social benefit program the IRS has been asked to implement in recent history.” And without ”sufficient funding” it won’t be able to discharge these new duties.

That wouldn’t be tragic, given that those new duties include audits to determine who has the insurance ”as required by lawand collecting penalties from Americans who don’t. Companies that don’t sponsor health plans will also be punished. This crackdown will ”involve nearly every division and function of the IRS,” Ms. Olson reports.

Well, well. Republicans argued during the health debate that the IRS would have to hire hundreds of new agents and staff to enforce ObamaCare. They were brushed off by Democrats and the press corps as if they believed the President was born on the moon. The IRS says it hasn’t figured out how much extra money and manpower it will need but admits that both numbers are greater than zero.

Ms. Olson also exposed a damaging provision that she estimates will hit some 30 million sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations, two million farms and one million charities and other tax-exempt organizations. Prior to ObamaCare, businesses only had to tell the IRS the value of services they purchase. But starting in 2013 they will also have to report the value of goods they buy from a single vendor that total more than $600 annually—including office supplies and the like.

Democrats snuck in this obligation to narrow the mythical ”tax gap” of unreported business income, but Ms. Olson says that the tracking costs for small businesses will be ”disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvement in tax compliance.” Job creation, here we come . . . at least for the accountants who will attempt to comply with a vast new 1099 reporting burden.

Meanwhile, the IRS will be inundated with useless information, because without a huge upgrade its information systems won’t be able to manage and track the nanodetails.

In a Monday letter, even Democratic Senators Mark Begich (Alaska), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) and Evan Bayh (Indiana) denounce this new ”burden” on small businesses and insist that the IRS use its discretion to find ”better ways to structure this reporting requirement.” In other words, they want regulators to fix one problem among many that all four Senators created by voting for ObamaCare.

We never thought anyone would be nostalgic for the tax system of a few months ago, but post-ObamaCare, here we are.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 366

13 juni, 2010

US Temperature during the recent 12 Month period – the same as in 1908

And the cooling continues. Sorry – I mean that Global Warming is an imminent treat to humankind.

And remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect;, tweak, processes and “adjusted the data; GISS for example uses 1200 km smoothing (which assumes that the weather in London somehow directly affects the weather in Monaco) etc.

For the April figures see my post:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 365

For the March figures see my post:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 357

For the February figures see my post:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 347 

For the January figures see my post:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 287

For the December figures see my post:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 207

May temperature 1895-2010

“The average temperature in May 2010 was 60.8 F. This was -0.2 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 50th coolest May in 116 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.”

This year, the May temperature is -4.6 F cooler than 1934, the warmest May. And if we compare this year’s May with 1936, the second warmest May, it is -3.38 F cooler.

If we compare with 1896 this year’s May is -2.39 F cooler.  

This year, the May temperature is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN 1895! AND 1904.  In fact it is 0.19 F COOLER. One fifth of a degree cooler in 115 years.

That’s what I call WARMING!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Click on the graphs for a larger image

And the recent 3 Month period (Mar-May) 1895-2010.

This year, the Mar-May temperature is -1.9 F cooler than for example 1910. And if we compare this years Mar-May temperature with 2004 it is -1.78 F cooler.

This year, 2010 (Mar-May), the temperature is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN 1936!  In fact it is 0.08 F COOLER. One tenth of a degree cooler in 74 years.

Another glorious example of the catastrophic warming in the last 116 years!

And the recent 12 Month period (Jun-May) 1895-2010

This year, 2009/2010 (Jun-May), was the 53th coolest in 116 years

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -2.49 F cooler than for example 2000. And if we compare with 1934 it is –2.2 F cooler.

This year, 2009 /2010 (Jun-May), the temperature is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN 1908! AND 1910.  AND 1963. In fact it is 0.02 F Warmer. One fiftieth of a degree warmer in 102 years.

Puh, that what I call an imminent treat to humankind!

1/50 of a degree WARMER in 102 years

And the recent 12 Month period (May-Apr) 1895-2010 for states.

I thought it would be interesting to compare states with the national figures for the recent 12 months.

Arkansas

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -4.3 F cooler than for example 1932. And if we compare with 1955 it is –3.7 F cooler.

California

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -2.4 F cooler than for example 1997. And if we compare with 1934 it is –1.9 F cooler.

Georgia

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -4.5 F cooler than for example 1934. And if we compare with 1922 it is –3.6 F cooler.

Indiana

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -3.7 F cooler than for example 1932. And if we compare with 1922 it is –2.5 F cooler.

Kentucky

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -4.2 F cooler than for example 1932. And if we compare with 1935 it is –3.6 F cooler.

Massachusetts

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -1.7 F cooler than for example 2002. And if we compare with 1898 it is –2.2 F cooler.

New Mexico

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -2.8 F cooler than for example 1934. And if we compare with 1902 it is –2.3 F cooler.

Washington

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -1,4 F cooler than for example 1934. And if we compare with 1992 it is –1,3 F cooler.

West Virginia

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -3.5 F cooler than for example 1932. And if we compare with 1974 it is –2.5 F cooler.

 

Wyoming

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -5.5 F cooler than for example 1934. And if we compare with 1981 it is –3.8 F cooler.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 365

21 maj, 2010

And the cooling continues. Sorry – I mean that Global Warming is an imminent treat to humankind.

And remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect;, tweak, processes and “adjusted the data; GISS for example uses 1200 km smoothing (which assumes that the weather in Paris somehow directly affects the weather in Budapest) etc.

For the March figures see my post:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 357

For the February figures see my post:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 347 

For the January figures see my post:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 287

For the December figures see my post:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 207

April temperature 1895-2010

“The average temperature in April 2010 was 54.3 F. This was 2.3 F warmer than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 14th warmest April in 116 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

This year, the April temperature is -1.99 F cooler than 2006, the warmest April. And if we compare this year’s April with 1981, the second warmest April, it is -1.88 F cooler.

If we compare with 1924 this year’s April is -1.29 F cooler.  

This year, the April temperature is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN 1895! AND 1910.  In fact it is 0.25 F COOLER. One fifth of a degree cooler in 100 years.

That’s what I call WARMING!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

                         Click on the graphs for a larger image

And the recent 3 Month period (Feb-Apr) 1895-2010.

This year, the Feb-Apr temperature is -2.93 F cooler than for example 1925. And if we compare this years Feb-Apr temperature with 1946 it is -2.66 F cooler.

This year, 2010 (Feb-Apr), the temperature is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN 1907!  In fact it is 0.05 F COOLER. One twentieth of a degree cooler in 103 years.

Another glorious example of the catastrophic warming in the last 116 years!

And the recent 12 Month period (May-Apr) 1895-2010

This year, 2009/2010 (May-Apr), was the 62th coolest in 116 years

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -1.66 F cooler than for example 1934. And if we compare with 1954 it is –1.31 F cooler.

This year, 2009 /2010 (May-Apr), the temperature is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN 1898! AND 1900.  AND 1902. In fact it is 0.01 F COOLER. One hundreth of a degree cooler in 110 years.

Puh, that what I call an imminent treat to humankind!

1/100 of a degree COOLER in 110 years

I thought it would be interesting to compare states with the national figures for the recent 12 months.

California 

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -1.2 F cooler than for example 1905. And if we compare with 1959 it is –1 F cooler.

Colorado

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -2.6 F cooler than for example 1902. And if we compare with 1934 it is –4.3 F cooler.

Florida

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -2.1 F cooler than for example 1913. And if we compare with 1949 it is –3 F cooler.

Illinois

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -4 F cooler than for example 1932. And if we compare with 1954 it is –3.4 F cooler.

Pennsylvania

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -3.2 F cooler than for example 1932. And if we compare with 1921 it is –1.8 F cooler.

South Dakota

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is 12,6 F cooler than for example 1931. And if we compare with 1990 it is 13,8 F cooler.

Tennessee

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -4.6 F cooler than for example 1932. And if we compare with 1922 it is –3.6 F cooler.

Texas

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -3.3 F cooler than for example 1911. And if we compare with 1935 it is –3.6 F cooler.

Virginia

This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -3.2 F cooler than for example 1932. And if we compare with 1954 it is –2.4 F cooler.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 363

10 maj, 2010

A printer-friendly PDF version of the Citizen Audit report released last month is now available here:

http://noconsensus.org/CitizenAuditReport.pdf

“21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F on a report card we are releasing today. Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,531 sources cited in the report – finding 5,587 to be not peer-reviewed.”

“We’ve been told this report is the gold standard. We’ve been told it’s 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific journal.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 362

7 maj, 2010

90% of the European cap and trade is a fraud according to Europol.

Europol, the European criminal intelligence agency, announced that Emissions Trading System fraud had resulted in about 5 billion euros in lost revenues.

Europol said:

“In announcing the raids, the agency said that as much as 90% of Europe‘s carbon trades were the result of fraudulent activity.

”Carbon markets are highly susceptible to fraud, given their complexity and the fact that it’s not always clear what is being traded,” says Oscar Reyes of Carbon Trade Watch.”

This is the he system that Crime Ink wants to force on us, that puts all the burden on the common people and does nothing whatsoever for the environment.

This is a scam to enrich the corrupt.

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANIDATE BARACK OBAMA:

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

See also my previous post: Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 361

Europol announcement:

http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.asp?page=news&news=pr091209.htm

http://euobserver.com/22/29996

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=532610

Europe‘s Carbon Mafia, And Ours

Posted 05/06/2010 07:18 PM ET

Corruption: The carbon trading system being pushed here has spawned crime and fraud across the pond. Cap-and-trade is not about saving the planet. It’s about money and power, and absolute power corrupting absolutely.

All across Europe authorities have been conducting raids, rounding up individuals involved in a new version of Climate-gate. This time the data aren’t corrupted. Europe‘s Emissions Trading System is. The system is so sick, it’s turned out to be a scam built upon a scam.

Twenty-five people have been arrested in raids by British and German authorities as part of a pan-European crackdown on carbon credit VAT tax fraud.

U.K. officials announced raids on 81 offices and homes, nabbing 13 people in England and eight in Scotland. The operation involved 450 investigators from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs office.

German authorities raided 230 locations, including the headquarters of Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt and the offices of RWE, one of the largest energy firms in Europe. The German operation involved 1,000 investigators targeting 50 companies and 150 suspects.

The amount of money involved in carbon trading is huge and the temptations vast. While our Congress demagogues about banks and their ”complex financial instruments,” they are simple compared to cap-and-trade, which as we have noted involves essentially the buying and selling of air. Throw in an oppressive value-added tax and you have a recipe for corruption and fraud.

Last December, Europol, the European criminal intelligence agency, announced that Emissions Trading System fraud had resulted in about 5 billion euros in lost revenues as Europe’s carbon traders schemed to avoid paying Europe’s VAT and pocket the difference. In announcing the raids, the agency said that as much as 90% of Europe‘s carbon trades were the result of fraudulent activity.

”Carbon markets are highly susceptible to fraud, given their complexity and the fact that it’s not always clear what is being traded,” says Oscar Reyes of Carbon Trade Watch.

Climate change has been found to be a fraud. Now the system to fight it has been. Yet it’s that system the administration and others want to establish here through cap-and-trade legislation such as Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer.

As we also have noted, the mechanism for such phantom carbon trading here has already been established in the form of the Chicago Climate Exchange. The Joyce Foundation in 2000 and 2001 provided the seed money to start CCX when Barack Obama sat on its board.

CCX founder Richard Sandor estimates the climate trading market could be ”a $10 trillion dollar market.” It is an invitation to fraud that would make Europe‘s ETS scandal seem like petty theft.

In 2000, according to Joyce Foundation records, $347,600 was allocated to Northwestern University‘s Kellogg Graduate School of Management, where Sandor was a research professor, ”to design a Midwestern pilot program for the voluntary trading of carbon dioxide and other emissions that cause climate change.”

Now President Obama would make such carbon trading mandatory, limit total emissions and make carbon as valuable a commodity as booze during Prohibition.

The Joyce Foundation’s two grants totaled just over $1 million. CCX has proved very lucrative for Sandor, whose 8 million shares in the exchange has grown to more than $260 million even before a national cap-and-trade system like Europe‘s is established.

Al Gore, who recently increased his carbon footprint by spending $8.9 million on an oceanview villa near Santa Barbara, Calif., sitting on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa, fountains, five bedrooms, nine bathrooms and no fewer than six fireplaces, is co-founder of Generation Investment Management LLP, the fifth largest shareholder in CCX.

The largest shareholder is, uh, Goldman Sachs. Other CCX founders include former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood, as well as Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, also of Goldman Sachs. Presumably they know a lot about playing shell games with other people’s money.

What has happened in Europe is going to happen here and may already have begun. We, too, can save the earth for fun and profit.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 361

2 maj, 2010

I have written extensible (over 100 of posts) about the scam called cap and trade, where BOTH BUYER AND SELLER BENEFITS FROM CHEATING. And we, as taxpayers and consumers pay the prise. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation.

And recognize it for what it is – A GIANT FINANCIAL SCAM that puts all the burden on the common people and does nothing whatsoever for the environment.

The European model is a carnival of corruption, profiteering, speculation and multi-billion-dollar fraud. It’s done nothing to improve the environment while handing undeserved profits to big business and driving up the cost of energy to consumers.

Well here is the latest episode of “The Sopranos”, where Glenn Beck gives a very good overview of the people and politicians pushing the Cap and trade and the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), and their HUGE financial gains from this.

And these guys spends billions of $ of our tax money.

What they are really advocating is huge price increases in the cost of energy, meaning the cost of everything.

That’s it. That’s their plan.

Anything else they say is a lie.

This is a scam to enrich the corrupt.

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANIDATE BARACK OBAMA:

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 360

28 april, 2010

And the never ending story of exposing IPCC:s lies continues. This one from Bangladesh and Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS).

Yet AGAIN IPCC and their “scientists” “forgot” a very crucial fact.

Surprise, surprise!

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=531579

IPCC’s River Of Lies

Posted 04/27/2010 07:01 PM ET

Global Warming: Another shoe has dropped from the IPCC centipede as scientists in Bangladesh say their country will not disappear below the waves. As usual, the U.N.’s climate charlatans forgot one tiny detail.

It keeps getting worse for the much-discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which seems to have built its collapsing house of climate cards on sand or, more specifically, river sediment.

After fraudulent claims about Himalayan glaciers, African crop harvests and Amazon rain forests, plus a 2007 assessment report based on anecdotal evidence, student term papers and nonpeer-reviewed magazine articles, the panel’s doomsday forecast for Bangladesh has been exposed as its latest hoax.

According to the 2007 report, melting glaciers and polar ice would lead to rising sea levels and just a three-foot rise would flood 17% of the low-lying country of Bangladesh by 2050 and create 20 million refugees.

Now comes a study from the  that says the IPCC forgot to factor in the 1 billion tons of sediment carried by Himalayan rivers such as the Ganges and the Brahmaputra into Bangladesh every year.

CEGIS director Maminul Haque Sarker told AFP that ”studies on the effects of climate change in Bangladesh, including those quoted by the IPCC, did not consider the role of sediment in the growth and adjustment process of the country’s coast and rivers to the sea level rise.” Even if sea levels rose according to IPCC predictions, Sarker says, natural sediment deposits would cancel the effect of any rise.

Apocalyptic changes forecast by climate change alarmists, according to Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the International Commission on Sea Level Change, are not in the cards. Despite fluctuations down as well as up, ”the sea is not rising,” he says. ”It hasn’t risen in 50 years.”

If there is any rise this century it will ”not be more than 10 cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm.”

Six times he and his expert team visited the Maldive Islands to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has, if anything, dropped in recent decades. Venice, Italy, has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr. Morner.

IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri defended his organization’s predictions by warning that ”on the basis of one study one cannot jump to conclusions.” Yet he and the IPCC jumped to the conclusion that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 based on unsubstantiated student theses and anecdotes from a magazine for mountain climbers. These claims have been withdrawn amid much laughter.

Still, Pachauri persists in his fables. ”One single error doesn’t take anything away from the major findings of the report,” he said. ”The fact is that the glaciers are melting.” At least the glaciers in Iceland are, due to natural forces, namely volcanic activity. Even if real, not everything can be blamed on man.

In February, it was reported that India was pulling out of the IPCC because it could no longer trust the U.N. body’s data or conclusions. The day after India’s announcement, the Netherlands asked the U.N. to explain why the IPCC had said in its 2007 report, which helped it win its share of a Nobel Prize shared with Al Gore, that 55% of the country was below sea level, a figure the Dutch say is closer to 26%.

There’s been a sea change in the consideration of the bogus claims of the IPCC, Gore, Britain’s CRU and other climate charlatans. No longer accepted on faith, they are being challenged and disproven by scientific fact.

Our sediments exactly.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 358

14 april, 2010

The wonderful benefits of CO2– The gas of life

Earth is actually in a ‘CO2 Famine’

Professor Frank J. Tipler:

“Carbon dioxide is first and foremost a plant food. In fact, plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use the energy from sunlight to combine the CO2 with water to yield glucose, the simplest sugar molecule. Carbon dioxide is also the source of all organic — this word just means “contains carbon” — molecules synthesized by plants. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there would be no organic molecules synthesized by plants. The less carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the fewer organic molecules synthesized by plants. All animals depend on plants to synthesize essential organic molecules. Without the organic molecules synthesized by plants, the animal world could not exist. Without plants, there would be no biosphere.

Several million years ago, a disaster struck the terrestrial biosphere: there was a drastic reduction in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The flowering plants evolved to be most efficient when the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 1,000 parts per million.”

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=AF8F5B20-802A-23AD-49FB-8A2D53F00437

David Archibald:

“The 100 ppm carbon dioxide increase since the beginning of industrialisation has been responsible for an average increase in plant growth rate of 15% odd.”

And remember, the present level of CO2 is around 389 ppm. Which is 61 ppm BELOW the lowest figure in the video.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo

Also remember that commercial greenhouse operators often enrich greenhouse air with CO2 , also known as nature’s fertilizer, to levels of 1500 parts per million, or four times that of our current atmosphere.

See also my posts:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 110

Humans and Their CO2 Save the Planet! We’re really in a CO2 famine now.

The Best way to reduce CO2 emissions? – Civil War, Dictators, Political oppression and TOTAL poverty for the people!

The wonderful benefits of CO2!

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 357

8 april, 2010

And the cooling continues. Sorry – I mean that Global Warming is an imminent treat to humankind.

And remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect etc.

For the February figures see my post:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 347 

For the January figures see my post:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 287

For the December figures see my post:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 207

March 2010 departure from normal temperature

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html

 

March temperature 1895-2010

“The average temperature in March 2010 was 44.4 F. This was 1.9 F warmer than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 32nd warmest March in 116 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. “

This year, the March temperature is -6.13 F cooler than1910, the warmest March. And if we compare this year’s March with 1921 it is -3.16 F cooler.

If we compare with 1946 this year’s March is -3.48 F cooler.  

That’s what I call WARMING!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

 

And the recent 12 Month period (Apr-Mar) 1895-2010

This year, 2009 /2010 (Apr-Mar), the temperature is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN 1898! AND 1909.  In fact it is 0.12 F COOLER. One tenth of a degree cooler in 112 years.

Puh, that what I call an eminent treat to humankind!

1/10 of a degree COOLER in 112 years

 

 

And the recent 3 Month period (Jan-Mar) 1895-2010.

This year, 2009/2010 (Jan-Mar), was the 60th coolest January-March in 116 years.

This year, the Jan-Mar temperature is -2.17 F cooler than for example 1907. And if we compare this years Jan-Mar temperature with 1921 it is -4.17 F cooler.

Another glorious example of the catastrophic warming in the last 116 years!

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

 

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 355

21 mars, 2010

“…oceanographer Dr. Robert Stephenson of the U.S. Office of Naval Research and NASA to say, Even when exposed, the IPCC leaders claimed it was their “right” to change scientific conclusions so that political leaders could better understand the report.” “To the world’s geophysical community, these unethical practices and total lack of integrity by the leadership of the IPCC have been enough to reveal that their collective claims were – and are – fraudulent.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21134

Environmentalists Are Killing Environmentalism

By Dr. Tim Ball  Friday, March 19, 2010

Aesop (620-564 BC) the Greek writer famous for his fables told of the boy who falsely cried wolf. Environmentalists have falsely cried wolf and effectively undermine environmentalism the need to live within the confines of a finite planet. They misled, exaggerated and made a multitude of false predictions to the detriment of the environment and people’s willingness to be aware and concerned. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was a major starting point that blamed DDT for many things including thinner eggshells none of which proved correct.

Indeed, as Paul Driessen identified in Eco-imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, banning DDT led to millions of unnecessary deaths from malaria that exceed deaths from AIDS in Africa.

A myriad of false stories made headlines over the last 40 years. All are conditional that is they’re prefaced by words like, ‘could’ and ‘maybe’, but the public generally remembers the terse and unconditional headlines.  Ultimately almost all the stories were subsequently proved incorrect, but that never makes the headlines. Remember such stories as sheep and rabbits going blind in Chile because of thinning ozone.

Well as scientists at Johns Hopkins showed it was due to a local infection

We heard of frogs born deformed and humans were blamed because of pollution. Biologist Stan Sessions showed it was due to a natural parasite.

Each week some natural phenomenon is presented as unnatural and by implication due to human activity. A book is needed to list all the claims and threats made that have not occurred, have proved false or are unfounded

Global warming  and latterly climate change, became the major plank of environmentalist’s religious campaign. They used it to dictate and control how everyone else should live and behave, as a survey of the web pages of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club or Friends of the Earth show. The level of commitment is a real problem. It’s exaggerated by the declining economy and people experience the economic impacts of their tactics and extremism. 

Leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) disclosed what several scientists had suspected for a long time about the corruption of climate science. Subsequent exposure of the problems with the IPCC Reports led distinguished oceanographer Dr. Robert Stephenson of the U.S. Office of Naval Research and NASA to say, Even when exposed, the IPCC leaders claimed it was their “right” to change scientific conclusions so that political leaders could better understand the report.” “To the world’s geophysical community, these unethical practices and total lack of integrity by the leadership of the IPCC have been enough to reveal that their collective claims were – and are – fraudulent.” But Bruce Cox, the executive director of Greenpeace “blamed the hacked emails to being politically motivated.”

John Bennett, executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada, made the same argument, saying: “Mann and his colleagues were simply speaking in their own high-level code, and a number of things were taken out of context.

His remarks underscore lack of understanding of climate science, the serious limitations of the IPCC Reports and what the emails actually disclose. It is not surprising because on March 10 UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said,  “Let me be clear: the threat posed by climate change is real. Nothing that has been alleged or revealed in the media recently alters the fundamental scientific consensus on climate change. Nor does it diminish the unique importance of the IPCC’s work.”

Environmentalism was what academics call a paradigm shift. Thomas Kuhn defined them as “a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions.” Some attribute the composite photo of the Earth, taken by astronauts in Apollo 8 as the symbolic start of the new paradigm of environmentalism.

Environmental groups grabbed the concept and quickly took the moral high ground preaching that only they cared about the Earth. They went to extremes putting any plant or animal ahead of any human activity or need. Extreme environmentalists profess an anti-humanity, and anti-evolution philosophy. Humans are an aberration according to Ron Arnold, Executive Vice-President of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. Environmentalism intends to transform government, economy, and society in order to liberate nature from human exploitation.” David Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service claims Darwin’s evolution theory doesn’t apply to humans. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line – at about a billion years ago – we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

Climate scientists at the CRU used the IPCC, a political vehicle established by the UN, to provide the false scientific basis for all energy and environmental policies. They created what Essex and McKitrick called the Doctrine of Certainty in their book Taken by Storm. They define this as, “The basic not-to-be-questioned assertions of the Doctrine are:  

  1. The Earth is warming.
  2. Warming has already been observed.
  3. Humans are causing it.
  4. All but a handful of scientists on the fringe believe it.
  5. Warming is bad.
  6. Action is required immediately.
  7. Any action is better than none.
  8. Claims of uncertainty only cover the ulterior motives of individuals aiming to stop needed action.
  9. Those who defend uncertainty are bad people.

They conclude, “The Doctrine is not true. Each assertion is either manifestly false or the claim to know it is false.Remember this was written before disclosure of the emails and the many IPCC errors.

But the most devastating proof of the scientific inadequacies of the IPCC Reports is the complete failure of every prediction they have made. They were as wrong on every issue as the Club of Rome Limits to Growth predictions. Ability to predict weather  accurately is difficult in 24 hours and virtually impossible beyond 72 hours. AGW proponents claimed weather was different than climate and predictable with a degree of certainty. This is false because climate is an average of the weather. If their claim was correct forecasts in the brief 20 years since their first Report in 1990 would be correct. Every one is wrong. They tried to avoid the problem by switching to a range of scenarios but even the lowest wrong. These are facts Ban Ki Moon and environmental groups can understand. By ignoring them and crying wolf when the wolf is already in the flock undermines the logical and reasonable adoption of environmentalism.

Environmentalists took over environmentalism and preached to everyone how they knew best and only they cared. How dare they? We are all environmentalists. With blind faith they, deceived, misdirected, threatened, destroyed jobs, careers, opportunities and development. Now those who paid the price will be less willing to listen or support genuine environmental concerns. 

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 354

15 mars, 2010

They are SOOO “scientific” are they not?

And these charlatans are spending billions and trillions of our tax  money.

“In response to Wigley’s warning, Jones now counselled him to suppress and conceal his concerns and acted as an advocate for Wang’s defence despite the “valid” evidence against his claims. In an email, Jones appealed to Wigley to “keep quiet” about his apparent backing for Keenan’s concern. In order to obviate any further critique or action by Wigley, Jones speciously told him that SUNY was about to take action against Keenan: “Just for interest! Keep quiet about both issues. In touch with Wei-Chyung Wang. Just agreed with him that I will send a brief response to Peiser. The allegation by Keenan has gone to SUNY. Keenan’s about to be told by SUNY that submitting this has violated a confidentiality agreement he entered into with SUNY when he sent the complaint. WCW has nothing to worry about, but it still unsettling!””

“The following day, (Sept. 11), Michael Mann responded to the new development. In an email to Jones, he suggested that Wang should threaten E&E with a libel suit: “Wei Chyung needs to sue them, or at the least threaten a lawsuit. If he doesn’t, this will set a dangerous new precedent. I could put him in touch w/ anleading (sic) attorney who would do this pro bono. Of course, this has to be done quickly. The threat of a lawsuit alone my (sic) prevent them from publishing this paper, so time is of the essence. Please feel free to mention this directly to Wei Chyung, in particular that I think he needs to pursue a legal course her independent of whatever his university is doing. He cannot wait for Stony Brook to complete its internal investigations! If he does so, it will be too late to stop this.”

“The concerted efforts by a group of eminent climate scientists to prevent the publication of the Keenan paper had been unsuccessful. However, this was mainly due to the fact that I was prepared to resist peer pressure and to be open-minded regarding Keenan’s evidence and argumentation. I doubt that mainstream science editors would have dared to reject the opposition by leading climate scientists who had targeted an amateur researcher. As Phil Jones fittingly put it to me in an email: “How would any journal ever contemplate publishing such a paper?”

“On Feb. 1, 2010, The Guardian reported that Doug Keenan’s E&E paper “may yet result in a significant revision of a scientific paper that is still cited by the UN’s top climate science body. […] The [CRU] emails suggest that [Phil Jones] helped to cover up flaws in temperature data from China that underpinned his research on the strength of recent global warming. The Guardian has learned that crucial data obtained by American scientists from Chinese collaborators cannot be verified because documents containing them no longer exist. And what data is available suggests that the findings are fundamentally flawed.”

“At no time since Keenan and Wigley raised significant doubts about the reliability of Chinese climate data has Jones taken public steps to clear up the discrepancies regarding Wang’s claims and data. It is unacceptable that the scientist who disseminates a data product on which international treaties are based, as well as IPCC reports and countless government policies, should actively seek to suppress information that calls the quality of the data into question, especially after one [of] his colleagues and a leading authority has advised him that Keenan’s evidence about the data appeared to be legitimate. Comparable behaviour in the private sector would be subject to severe sanction.

The revelations exposed by the CRU emails require the full disclosure of all documents and correspondence in this alleged fraud case. Until the whole affair is fully and publicly investigated, the reputation and integrity of leading climate scientists will remain to appear tainted and discredited.”

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/03/12/benny-peiser-climate-libel-chill.aspx

Benny Peiser: Climate libel chill

Posted: March 12, 2010, 7:29 PM by NP Editor

When asked for the data behind one study ‘proving’ global warming, CRU scientists instead planned to sue. Following the release of the Climategate emails from East Anglia University`s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the U.K.’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee decided to investigate its implications “for the integrity of scientific research.” Benny Peiser of the Faculty of Science at Liverpool John Moores University submitted a memorandum, which appears below in edited form.

By Benny Peiser

I am the editor of CCNet and the co-editor of the journal Energy & Environment (E&E).

I will outline the chronology of the CRU-Keenan affair as documented in the published CRU emails and according to unpublished email correspondence between me and Dr. Jones. [at CRU].

On Aug. 29, 2007, I received an email from Doug Keenan with his paper titled “The Fraud Allegations against Wei-Chyung Wang.” In this paper, Keenan accused Wei-Chyung Wang (State University of Albany, SUNY, New York) of scientific fraud. In his paper, Keenan documented evidence that Wang had fabricated information about Chinese meteorological weather stations. His allegations concern two publications, one by Jones et al (1990) that has been a cornerstone in multiple IPCC reports about the allegedly minimal role of the effect of urban heat islands on the global temperature record. One of the key papers to underpin this conclusion is the study by Jones et al. To refute Keenan’s claims of scientific fraud would have only required the release of documentary information about the Chinese weather stations in question which Wang has long claimed to possess.

In the afternoon of the same day (Aug. 29) I sent Phil Jones [then-director of the CRU] an email with a copy of Keenan’s paper attached. In my email, I asked Jones whether he would be prepared to comment on the content and factual accuracy of the Keenan paper.

Later that day, Jones circulated the paper to Dr. Wei-Chyung Wang and Dr. Tom Wigley (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research), informing both his colleagues that he “won’t be responding” to my request, but that he would be prepared to do so if his colleagues thought he should.

The next day, Aug. 30, Wang emailed Jones to say that Jones needed to respond “by providing E&E with a simple answer of ‘false’ to Keenan’s write-up, based on the communication with me.[…] We are facing a tricky person and group, and the only way to do it is to follow the procedure to drive them crazy. […] We are not going to let Keenan doing things his way. […] We should be thinking, after the whole odeal (sic) is over, to take legal (or other) actions against Keenan. […]”

In his response to Wang on the same day, Jones wrote: “Libel is quite easy to prove in the U.K. as you’re not a public figure. Perhaps when you’re back you ought to consider taking some legal advice from SUNY. Assuming the paper is published that is. […].”

Later the same day, Jones emailed Wang and Wigley to inform them that he would not respond to my request “until the SUNY process has run its course.”

Later still, Dr. Michael E. Mann (Pennsylvania State University) contacted Jones: “With respect to Peiser’s guest editing of E&E and your review, we think there are two key points. First, if there are factual errors (other than the fraud allegation) it is very important that you point them out now. If not, Keenan could later allege that he made the claims in good faith, as he provided you an opportunity to respond and you did now. Secondly, we think you need to also focus on the legal implications. In particular, you should mention that the publisher of a libel is also liable for damages — that might make Sonja B-C be a little wary. Of course, if it does get published, maybe the resulting settlement would shut down E&E and Benny and Sonja all together! We can only hope, anyway. So maybe in an odd way its (sic) actually win-win for us, not them. Lets (sic) see how this plays out…”

On Aug. 31, Tom Wigley (a former CRU director) emailed Jones to notify him that he believed Keenan’s paper raised a valid issue: “Seems to me that Keenan has a valid point. The statements in the papers that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone (WCW at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect. Whether or not this makes a difference is not the issue here.” Jones was now in possession of authoritative information that undermined his claims about the integrity of CRU data products for which he is responsible. Confronted with the evidence from Keenan, and, most importantly, Wigley’s advice that Keenan appeared to have a point, Jones should have been insistent on getting the data and facts out rather than keeping them secret.

In response to Wigley’s warning, Jones now counselled him to suppress and conceal his concerns and acted as an advocate for Wang’s defence despite the “valid” evidence against his claims. In an email, Jones appealed to Wigley to “keep quiet” about his apparent backing for Keenan’s concern. In order to obviate any further critique or action by Wigley, Jones speciously told him that SUNY was about to take action against Keenan: “Just for interest! Keep quiet about both issues. In touch with Wei-Chyung Wang. Just agreed with him that I will send a brief response to Peiser. The allegation by Keenan has gone to SUNY. Keenan’s about to be told by SUNY that submitting this has violated a confidentiality agreement he entered into with SUNY when he sent the complaint. WCW has nothing to worry about, but it still unsettling!”

On Sept. 5, Jones emailed me a list of objections to the Keenan paper. Ignoring the expert advice he had received from Wigley, Jones called on me to reject the paper: “My view is that the claims are unsubstantiated.”

I informed Jones that I would forward his objections to Keenan and stressed: “I know this is a very sensitive matter and I will not rush any decision. I will keep you updated and informed.”

On Sept. 10, I received Keenan’s response which I forwarded to Jones on the same day. I emailed Jones: “As far as I can see, his [Keenan’s] basic accusation seems unaffected by your criticism. Unless there is any compelling evidence that Keenan’s main claim is unjustified or unsubstantiated, I intend to publish his paper in the forthcoming issue of E&E. Please let me know by the end of the week if you have any additional arguments that may sway me in my decision.”

On the same day, Jones forwarded my email to Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, concluding: “It seems as though E&E will likely publish this paper.”

The following day, (Sept. 11), Michael Mann responded to the new development. In an email to Jones, he suggested that Wang should threaten E&E with a libel suit: “Wei Chyung needs to sue them, or at the least threaten a lawsuit. If he doesn’t, this will set a dangerous new precedent. I could put him in touch w/ anleading (sic) attorney who would do this pro bono. Of course, this has to be done quickly. The threat of a lawsuit alone my (sic) prevent them from publishing this paper, so time is of the essence. Please feel free to mention this directly to Wei Chyung, in particular that I think he needs to pursue a legal course her independent of whatever his university is doing. He cannot wait for Stony Brook to complete its internal investigations! If he does so, it will be too late to stop this.”

Later that day, I received three emails by Phil Jones with additional references and objections to the Keenan paper. Jones put additional pressure on by stressing: I don’t see how any journal would ever contemplate publishing such a paper. I hope you’ll reconsider.”

After minor revisions of the paper following peer review, I informed Keenan on Oct. 8 that I had accepted his paper for publication with the modified title “The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang.” It was published in E&E volume 18, number 7-8, pp. 985-995 in December, 2007.

The concerted efforts by a group of eminent climate scientists to prevent the publication of the Keenan paper had been unsuccessful. However, this was mainly due to the fact that I was prepared to resist peer pressure and to be open-minded regarding Keenan’s evidence and argumentation. I doubt that mainstream science editors would have dared to reject the opposition by leading climate scientists who had targeted an amateur researcher. As Phil Jones fittingly put it to me in an email: “How would any journal ever contemplate publishing such a paper?”

On Feb. 1, 2010, The Guardian reported that Doug Keenan’s E&E paper “may yet result in a significant revision of a scientific paper that is still cited by the UN’s top climate science body. […] The [CRU] emails suggest that [Phil Jones] helped to cover up flaws in temperature data from China that underpinned his research on the strength of recent global warming. The Guardian has learned that crucial data obtained by American scientists from Chinese collaborators cannot be verified because documents containing them no longer exist. And what data is available suggests that the findings are fundamentally flawed.”

At no time since Keenan and Wigley raised significant doubts about the reliability of Chinese climate data has Jones taken public steps to clear up the discrepancies regarding Wang’s claims and data. It is unacceptable that the scientist who disseminates a data product on which international treaties are based, as well as IPCC reports and countless government policies, should actively seek to suppress information that calls the quality of the data into question, especially after one [of] his colleagues and a leading authority has advised him that Keenan’s evidence about the data appeared to be legitimate. Comparable behaviour in the private sector would be subject to severe sanction.

The revelations exposed by the CRU emails require the full disclosure of all documents and correspondence in this alleged fraud case. Until the whole affair is fully and publicly investigated, the reputation and integrity of leading climate scientists will remain to appear tainted and discredited.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 353

11 mars, 2010

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-three-of-the-four-temperature-datasets-now-irrevocably-tainted/

Climategate: Three of the Four Temperature Datasets Now Irrevocably Tainted

With today’s revelation on Pajamas Media, only the Japan Meteorological Agency is left to save the warmists. Don’t bet on it. (Click here to see Horner discuss this article on PJTV.)

March 11, 2010 – by Christopher Horner

The warmist response to Climategate — the discovery of the thoroughly corrupt practices of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) — was that the tainted CRU dataset was just one of four independent data sets. You know. So really there’s no big deal.

Thanks to a FOIA request, the document production of which I am presently plowing through — and before that, thanks to the great work of Steve McIntyre, and particularly in their recent, comprehensive work, Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Wattswe know that NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) passed no one’s test for credibility.

Not even NASA’s.

In fact, CRU’s former head, Phil Jones, even told his buddies that while people may think his dataset — which required all of those “fudge factors” (their words) — is troubled, “GISS is inferior” to CRU.

Really.

NASA’s temperature data is so woeful that James Hansen’s colleague Reto Ruedy told the USA Today weather editor:

“My recommendation to you is to continue using … CRU data for the global mean [temperatures]. … “What we do is accurate enough” — left unspoken: for government work“[but] we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.

To reiterate, NASA’s temperature data is worse than the Climategate temperature data. According to NASA.

And apparently, although these points were never stressed publicly before, NASA GISS is just “basically a modeling group forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data.” But now, however, NASA GISS “happily [combines the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) data] and Hadley Center’s data” for the purpose of evaluating NASA’s models.

So — Climategate’s CRU was just “one of four organizations worldwide that have independently compiled thermometer measurements of local temperatures from around the world to reconstruct the history of average global surface temperature.”

But one of the three remaining sets is not credible either, and definitely not independent.

Two down, two to go.

Reto Ruedy refers his inquiring (ok, credulous) reporter to NCDC — the third of the four data sets — as being the gold standard for U.S. temperatures.

But NCDC has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere — Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts have found NCDC completely incredible, having made a practice out of not including cooler temperature stations over time, exaggerating the warming illusion.

Three out of the four temperature datasets stink, with corroboration from the alarmists. Second-sourced, no less.

Anyone know if Japan has a FOIA?

Christopher Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 352

11 mars, 2010

The emails here:

http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdf

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-stunner-nasa-heads-knew-nasa-data-was-poor-then-used-data-from-cru/?singlepage=true

Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU

New emails from James Hansen and Reto Ruedy (download PDF here) show that NASA’s temperature data was doubted within NASA itself, and was not independent of CRU’s embattled data, as has been claimed.

March 10, 2010 – by Charlie Martin

Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database.

These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data.

Further, all of this information regarding the accuracy and independence of NASA GISS data was directly communicated to a reporter from USA Today in August 2007.

The reporter never published it.

—————————————

There are only four climate datasets available. All global warming study, such as the reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), must be based on these four.

They are: the NASA GISS dataset, the NCDC GHCN dataset, the CRU dataset, and the Japan Meteorological Agency dataset.

Following Climategate, when it became known that raw temperature data for CRU’s “HADCRU3″ climate dataset had been destroyed, Phil Jones, CRU’s former director, said the data loss was not important — because there were other independent climate datasets available.

But the emails reveal that at least three of the four datasets were not independent, that NASA GISS was not considered to be accurate, and that these quality issues were known to both top climate scientists and to the mainstream press.

In a response to reporter Doyle Rice of USA Today, Dr. Reto Ruedy — a senior scientist at NASA — recommended the following:

Continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and Phil Jones’ [HADCRU3] data for the global means. …

We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the 70s and early 80s. …

Now we happily combine NCDC’s and Hadley Center data to … evaluate our model results.

This response was extended later the same day by Dr. James Hansen — the head of NASA GISS:

[For] example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not. …

It should be noted that the different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise.

Two implications of these emails: The data to which Phil Jones referred to as “independent” was not — it was being “corrected” and reused among various climate science groups, and the independence of the results was no longer assured; and the NASA GISS data was of lower quality than Jones’ embattled CRU data.

The NCDC GHCN dataset mentioned in the Ruedy email has also been called into question by Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts. D’Aleo and Watts showed in a January 2010 report that changes in available measurement sites and the selection criteria involved in “homogenizing” the GHCN climate data raised serious questions about the usefulness of that dataset as well.

These three datasets — from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU — are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming.

Charlie Martin is a Colorado computer scientist and freelance writer. He holds an MS in Computer Science from Duke University, where he spent six years with the National Biomedical Simulation Resource, Duke University Medical Center. Find him at http://chasrmartin.com, and on his blog at http://explorations.chasrmartin.com.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 351

11 mars, 2010

“We are being asked, commanded, to change the basic ways that we produce and use energy. The reason for this change is also different from what you might think.

The environmental movement uses a speculative opinion about carbon dioxide to arm its fight against you. When they say they are “fighting global warming,” what they really mean is they are fighting your prosperity. Your prosperity is directly related to the production of affordable energy with fossil fuels. China understands this. India understands this. The environmental movement understands it as well, but does not care.”

“What you must always keep in mind is that the only goal of the environmental movement is to save nature from you. There is no other reason for its existence. The environmental movement does not care what happens to your job, your family, your future, the future of your children, this country, any country.

Another subtle mission of the “go green” slogan is to have you participate in their war without you knowing it. In a very real sense “go green” is the war cry of the environmental movement  — vilifying a gas we can’t live without to arm their anti-civilization war machine.”

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-true-meaning-of-go-green/?singlepage=true

The True Meaning of ‘Go Green’

Despite the sales pitch, ”going green” is not remotely about you or your children’s future.

Posted By Art Horn On March 10, 2010

It’s omnipresent now, appearing in every form of media, in grocery stores, on any sort of product. Smiles and earth tone images greet us as we are told over and over again to “go green,” it’s the right thing to do. Don’t be left out, everyone’s doing it! Green is in, save the earth. It’s in all the schools — green is good, kind, and moral. Green is our future. Without it there will be no future.

To “go green” is a metaphor for a cause, but the cause is not the one you might think it is. Green is not about saving energy. It is not about conservation or living more efficiently by recycling. It’s not about electric cars or hydrogen power or solar panels.

Green is not about you. Green is about saving nature. From you.

We are told that going green is the way to create a more eco-friendly and responsible world, but the real meaning is more subtle and sinister. To go green means to change what we are doing, and implies that if we don’t change what we are doing we will inflict terrible harm on the planet and future generations. So what are we to change from, and to what?

We are being asked, commanded, to change the basic ways that we produce and use energy. The reason for this change is also different from what you might think.

The environmental movement uses a speculative opinion about carbon dioxide to arm its fight against you. When they say they are “fighting global warming,” what they really mean is they are fighting your prosperity. Your prosperity is directly related to the production of affordable energy with fossil fuels. China understands this. India understands this. The environmental movement understands it as well, but does not care.

Roughly 87 percent of everything we make energy from produces carbon dioxide gas. “Go green” looks to reduce the output of that gas. The problem is there is nothing “green” on any scale remotely near what is needed to replace fossil fuels in the foreseeable future. They know that there will never be enough windmills or solar panels to power even a tiny fraction of the world we know today, much less the future. The leaders of the environmental movement know this.

The phrase “go green” seems harmless enough — what’s so wrong with being more efficient and looking for new ways of producing energy? It’s true, there’s nothing wrong with looking for new energy sources. But going green has been promoted as the answer to all of our energy needs, the idea being that if we “go green” we can save the earth and still produce plenty of energy and create new jobs. This is part of the lie.

What you must always keep in mind is that the only goal of the environmental movement is to save nature from you. There is no other reason for its existence. The environmental movement does not care what happens to your job, your family, your future, the future of your children, this country, any country.

Another subtle mission of the “go green” slogan is to have you participate in their war without you knowing it. In a very real sense “go green” is the war cry of the environmental movement  — vilifying a gas we can’t live without to arm their anti-civilization war machine.

The opportunities of “going green” have not been lost on corporate America. Corporations have joined in a strange alliance of sorts with the environmental groups. Some very large companies are promoting “go green” in their ad campaigns — you can’t watch a commercial from General Electric without seeing a windmill. Insurance companies promote “going green” as a responsible and eco-sensitive way to insure your car or house. Solar panels are ubiquitous in advertising, lighting our way to a brighter future. Yet corporations could care less about the environmentalist goal of “going green” — the phrase is, again, meant to sucker, to make the consumer feel good about buying the product from the company. It’s no different than the use of words like “new,” “improved,” or “natural.” “Green” is just another marketing tool, and the act of “going green” in the corporate world is the same as it has always been, even if the color of money is not always green anymore.

“Go green” stands for reduced economic activity. The idea is to change the world — scale down the world’s economies to save the climate and the world from prosperity seeking humans. Why else would all these eco-groups demand we meet the now defunct Kyoto Protocol carbon emission reductions? Why else would they demand we reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050? Because they know the only way to meet those carbon reductions is to radically change everything. The environmentalists fully intend to beat down the economies of developed nations and to stamp out any hopes of the third world.

The next time you see or hear or read “go green” remember it means “go back” — to a time when people lived half as long as today. To a time when humans were at the mercy of nature.

Don’t fall for it.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 350

10 mars, 2010

“Emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that the Obama Department of Energy is using the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) — the lobbying arm of “Big Wind” in the U.S. — to coordinate political responses with two strongly ideological activist groups: the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and the George Soros funded Center for American Progress (CAP).”

“The emails expose active coordination between the Obama administration, the DoE and its National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and the AWEA. These emails show the Obama DoE using the AWEA as a conduit to both the CAP and the UCS, and taking steps to ensure that aspects of its coordination were not committed to paper (or email) because the emails might be revealed later.”

Thye FOIA request and emails here:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/breaking-released-emails-show-wind-lobby-soros-group-helped-with-white-house-pr-pjm-exclusive-%E2%80%94-read-the-emails-here/

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/examining-the-greenjobsgate-emails-obama-administration-takes-direction-from-wind-lobby-soros-group/?singlepage=true

Examining the GreenJobsGate Emails: Obama Administration Takes Direction from Wind Lobby, Soros Group

The Department of Energy’s scientific conclusions were instigated — even dictated — by Big Wind’s lobbyists and leftists. Read here for the timeline and the key figures involved.

March 9, 2010 – by Christopher Horner

Emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that the Obama Department of Energy is using the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) — the lobbying arm of “Big Wind” in the U.S. — to coordinate political responses with two strongly ideological activist groups: the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and the George Soros funded Center for American Progress (CAP).

This is further proof that Obama has betrayed his promise to ban lobbyists. Further, this incident suggests yet another questionable appointment — Cathy Zoi, assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy at the DoE, injected politics into public policy. Cathy Zoi also happens to be the former CEO of Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection.

This incident began when an economic paper published by a Spanish university concluded that Spain’s “green jobs” program has cost the country about $800,000 and 2.2 jobs per each job created. Spain’s program had been cited eight times by the Obama administration as being the model for its vision of a U.S. “green jobs” program.

The emails privately describe the Spanish paper as “damaging.”

The emails expose active coordination between the Obama administration, the DoE and its National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and the AWEA. These emails show the Obama DoE using the AWEA as a conduit to both the CAP and the UCS, and taking steps to ensure that aspects of its coordination were not committed to paper (or email) because the emails might be revealed later.

The emails reveal three principal issues in the 900 pages received so far. (“So far,” because the Competitive Enterprise Institute is appealing NREL’s withholding of many more pages, and reviewing the DoE’s recent production to see if those withholdings should be challenged.)

The three principle issues:

1. The Obama DoE’s relationship with the Big Wind lobby and left-wing ideological activists. What role did those groups play in producing an official administration response to the Spanish “green jobs” study?

2. Apparently misleading — or false — statements made to Congress by the DoE. Particularly the statements made by Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi. What was her role in developing the response to the Spanish report?

3. Career DoE staffers’ and scientists’ confusion, then concern, then scrambling, and finally dissembling regarding how the response was initiated and at whose request. Was the report — which cost taxpayers around $5000 to prepare — instigated and directed by an industry lobby?

The difficulty in reconciling the internal discussions revealed by the emails with statements made to congressional committees — by DoE’s legislative affairs staff, and by Ms. Zoi specifically — raise questions that should interest those congressional committees. It seems inescapable from these emails that the AWEA actually instigated the DoE report. It is also clear that AWEA played a role in crafting it, along with the far-left UCS. This is important, because DoE and NREL are both on record saying it was the other guy’s idea.

More troubling, DoE followed up with a specific letter from Ms. Zoi to Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) that failed to answer his inquires, though the emails demonstrate that Ms. Zoi’s staff had the information Congressman Sensenbrenner was seeking. In fact, the emails show great consternation regarding what to say about this question, and a reluctance to put in writing who the “unnamed sponsor” was. The email trail I received concludes with a September 22, 2009, email, calling for a huddle in the office of Zoi’s Chief Operating Officer Steven Chalk to get things straight.

The DoE emails show the following sequence of events:

1. The AWEA was unnerved by the Spanish report.

2. AWEA went to DoE’s NREL with its anxieties, asking what the Obama administration would do to respond.

3. NREL began putting together an internal “talking points” memo on the paper, working with AWEA.

4. AWEA’s chief lobbyist told Cathy Zoi that NREL was producing the internal memo with AWEA.

5. Upset by a George Will column citing the Spanish paper, and now aware that AWEA was crafting the memo with NREL, Zoi contacted NREL. She asked if the memo could be published as an official Obama administration response, rather than an NREL response.

6. NREL and DoE staff showed worry, because the paper was never intended to be — and does not meet DoE requirements to be — an external report. It was only suited to be an internal memo, as it reflected no actual research.

7. The paper was completed and sent to AWEA, with a request that AWEA send it to the Center for American Progress and the Union of Concerned Scientists. This was done at the request of DoE officials, who wanted the two leftist groups to offer comments on the paper prior to its release.

8. At this time, internal DoE and NREL discussion ensued about toning down the partisan nature of the paper. Oddly, this discussion had been accompanied by a request for CAP involvement.

9. Zoi’s office made sure the paper was issued with its status upgraded to be a more formal document than regulations indicate is proper. Emails reveal NREL and DoE staff worrying about pressure from Zoi to make this exception.

The emails fall into three categories, each raising interesting questions:

1. Emails discussing how to spin the Spanish report: how to respond to this challenge to one of the Obama administration’s cherished programs?

2. Emails telling of pressure being put on DoE staffers by Cathy Zoi.

3. Emails describing the DoE’s relationship with Big Wind, the Soros-funded CAP, and the leftist UCS.

You might expect this to be a story of great interest to the mainstream media.

But I have excellent information pointing to at least one national newspaper being given these same emails by DoE, upon request, only to have its editors spike the story. In addition to being a case-study in Obama-style governance, this incident reaffirms the role and the importance of new media (such as PJM).

As of today, the NREL and DoE are still withholding the comments from CAP and AWEA, and apparently are also withholding other communications that should have been provided following the appeal of other AWEA communications withheld.

Even so, the documents produced so far tell us much about the Obama administration and its dealings with favored lobbyists and ideological activists. As the investigation continues, we expect to discover much more of what the American people deserve to know regarding the current administration’s manner of governance.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 349

9 mars, 2010

The South African president’s office yesterday announced the nomination of its tourism minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk for the United Nations’ top climate post. As head of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCC).

Seems like the right guy for this UN ”scientific” job.  He worked as a student spy for the apartheid government. And he sold out his own political party for a junior cabinet seat in ANC. After that he started helping ANC to smear its democratic opposition and to encourage opposition politicians to defect.

Jepp, here we have another perfect example of a Global Warming Hysteric. And an excellent school book example of people that get appointed at high positions at UN.

This is the kind of people they, the Global Warming Hysterics, want to PUT IN CHARGE OF A WORLD GOVERNMENT. Or the embellishment they use “Global governance”.  (See also my previous post)

Nice people, wouldn’t you say. With the interest of the common people first in mind

Here is what Patrick Bond of South Africa’s Centre for Civil Society has to say about this charming guy:

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=vn20100309122626496C879941

“Director of the Centre for Civil Society Professor Patrick Bond questioned Van Schalkwyk’s ”integrity”, saying quality was required to head the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).

”The UNFCC post must be headed by someone of integrity, and that’s not a characteristic associated with Van Schalkwyk, thanks to his chequered career as an apartheid student spy and a man who sold out his political party for a junior cabinet seat,” said Bond.

He added the nomination ”doesn’t make sense, because if Van Schalkwyk was a world-class climate diplomat, why did (President Jacob) Zuma demote him by removing his environment duties last year?”

“Spokesman for Earthlife Africa Tristen Taylor said Van Schalkwyk did not have a good record in cutting carbon emissions while environmental affairs minister.”

The nomination here:

South African Government nominates Minister van Schalkwyk for top UN post

http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/show.asp?include=president/pr/2010/pr03081248.htm&ID=2005&type=pr

Marthinus nominated for top UN job

http://www.southafrica.info/news/international/climate-090310.htm

Marthinus van Schalkwyk nominated for UN climate change post – The Presidency

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=164521&sn=Detail

Van Schalkwyk tipped for top UN job

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-03-05-van-schalkwyk-tipped-for-top-un-job

South African tourism minister nominated for top UN climate job

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/08/marthinus-van-schalkwyk-un-climate

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 348

9 mars, 2010

“Climategate, named after Watergate by James Delingpole, refers to emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that exposed the corruption of climate science. Many, including scientists and politicians who liked the message that humans were destroying the planet, supported them. Watergate’s downfall was the cover up not the original actions, although they were illegal and outrageous. The cover up is now occurring in Climategate as those involved and benefiting financially and politically attempt to minimize the damage.

People directly involved in the CRU corruption are acting as they did all along, brazenly staring down the world with an arrogance evidenced on the propaganda web page, Realclimate, set up to protect and perpetuate their fraud.”

“The 1974 Club of Rome report titled, Mankind at the Turning Point says, “The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”  Their solution was dramatic reduction in population and a complete change in the socio-economic system through total government control. They chose global warming as “a new enemy to unite us.” A major architect of these ideas was Paul Ehrlich author of the Population Bomb (1968). He continues to predict apocalypse but consider some previous predictions.

1968 – The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines… hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death.

1969 –  I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.

1969 – By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.

1969 – By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million.”

For more on the Club of Rome and the persisten drive from these people for a world government see my posts:

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 3

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2,

The HUGE difference between EU and USA in response to Haiti.

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover

The New EU foreign minister – An undemocratic appointment to an undemocratic post created by an undemocratic treaty

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 76

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 39

THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CREED – Anti human, anti scientific, anti technology!

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL COOLING – This increase in CO2 emissions over the past 63 years has resulted in over 40 years of global cooling

Global Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalism

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20782

Political Agendas Continue to Drive Climate Fiasco

 By Dr. Tim Ball  Monday, March 8, 2010

The greatest scandal connected to global warming is not exaggeration, fraud or destruction of data to conceal the weakness of the argument. It is those who are personally profiting from promoting this fantasy at the expense of the rest of us.

The comment is absolutely wrong because by far the greatest scandal is the continued political exploitation, fraud and destruction of the economy.

Exploitation of global warming underscores a fundamental difference between left wing ideology from communism through socialism, and free market capitalism.

The former pursue political agendas regardless of failures and cost. Obama pursues green jobs or cap and trade that have failed elsewhere. The latter, if not too shackled by government, flexes, adapts, innovates, invents and advances the human condition and improves the environment (check pollution levels in communist countries). The left who used global warming as their Trojan Horse continue despite complete exposure of the fraudulent means used to build the horse.

The Cover Up Tells the Tale

Climategate, named after Watergate by James Delingpole, refers to emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that exposed the corruption of climate science. Many, including scientists and politicians who liked the message that humans were destroying the planet, supported them. Watergate’s downfall was the cover up not the original actions, although they were illegal and outrageous. The cover up is now occurring in Climategate as those involved and benefiting financially and politically attempt to minimize the damage.

People directly involved in the CRU corruption are acting as they did all along, brazenly staring down the world with an arrogance evidenced on the propaganda web page, Realclimate, set up to protect and perpetuate their fraud.

Others claim they’re victims, but both vow to fight back. Benjamin Santer was caught changing the wording in Chapter 8 of the 1995 Report, and claimed he was suffering a nervous breakdown. Phil Jones, deposed Director of the CRU said he was suicidal for a while after the news leaked.

Governments and universities are covering up. The University of East Anglia appointed a committee under Muir Russell to investigate. Russell’s own impartiality is under question, but additionally because two people chosen to assist him have serious conflicts of interest.

One, Philip Campbell, editor of Nature magazine was part of the corruption of peer review, selective publications and editorials supporting the CRU. He was forced to withdraw after his conflict was disclosed.

Another member, Geoffrey Boulton, was appointed because of his “expertise” and independence required to meet Russells’ claim that, “None have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the United Nations’ Independent Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”  One newspaper explains Boulton’s prejudice. “The Scotsman can reveal that only a few months ago, Prof Boulton, from the University of Edinburgh, was among a number of scientists who, in the wake of the climategate scandal, signed a petition to show their confidence that global warming was caused by humans. And for at least five years, he has made clear his strong views on global warming. He has given interviews and written articles – including in The Scotsman – that have spelled out his firmly held beliefs.” Muir is retaining Boulton despite his duplicity.

In the US a similar whitewashed inquiry occurred at Penn State with Michael Mann’s activities. And nobody else connected with CRU is being called to account. 

Consistently and Horrendously Wrong

The 1974 Club of Rome report titled, Mankind at the Turning Point says, “The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”  Their solution was dramatic reduction in population and a complete change in the socio-economic system through total government control. They chose global warming as “a new enemy to unite us.” A major architect of these ideas was Paul Ehrlich author of the Population Bomb (1968). He continues to predict apocalypse but consider some previous predictions.

1968 – The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines… hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death.

1969 –  I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.

1969 – By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.

1969 – By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million.

Now he, Steven Schneider and Paul Falkowski claim they’re the persecuted as their support of the falsified of climate science is undermined. Like the CRU gang, it is emails that expose them. The Washington Times obtained emails between scientists associated with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

It, as well as other National Academies, were used politically to ‘prove’ consensus. Now the world is aware of their use of environmentalism and climate change. Schneider defends their actions, “This was an outpouring of angry frustration on the part of normally very staid scientists who said, ‘God, can’t we have a civil dialogue here and discuss the truth without spinning everything,” It’s typical hypocrisy from a man who says spinning the truth is acceptable to achieve the goal.  Consider his 1998 Discover magazine comment. “On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts.  On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well.  And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.  To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination.  That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage.  So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.  This double ethical bind, which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.  Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” It is not an ethical bind; there is no choice between “being effective’ and “honest”. The statement describes exactly what they’ve done, the complete lack of ethics while the leaked emails provide the method.

Climate scientist Judith A. Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology says, “Sounds like this group wants to step up the warfare, continue to circle the wagons, continue to appeal to their own authority, etc. Surprising, since these strategies haven’t worked well for them at all so far.” Curry should add they continue to attack people who sought the facts. James Inhofe, Oklahoman Republican, was consistent in his opposition despite ridicule and persecution. Now he is a bigger threat as he seeks answers and accountability. Schneider takes on the task by making the distasteful comment that Inhofe is showing “McCarthyesque” behavior.

Pursue the goal of total government control

Paul Ehrlich pursues the victim theme, “Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules,”

The problem is this statement applies more to the members of the Club of Rome and those who support and pursue its goal of total government control.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 347

8 mars, 2010

And the cooling continues. Sorry – I mean that Global Warming is an imminent treat to humankind.

For the January figures see my post:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 287

For the December figures see my post:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 207

February 2010 departure from normal temperature

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html

 

February temperature 1895-2010

February 2010 the 29 coolest since 1895

“The average temperature in February 2010 was 32.41 F. This was -2.24 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest February in 116 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

This year, the February temperature is -3.74 F cooler than for example 1898. And if we compare this year’s February with 1896 it is -3.55 F cooler.

If we compare with 1930 this year’s February is -8.51 F cooler.  And if we compare with the warmest February (1954) it is -9.85 F cooler

That’s what I call WARMING!

http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/state-map-display.pl

                 Click on the graphs and they get bigger.

 

And the recent 12 Month period (Mar-Feb) 1895-2010

This year, 2009 /2010 (Mar-Feb), the temperature is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN 1898! AND 1902.  The difference is ah HUGE 0.02 F. One fiftieth of a degree in 112 years.

Puh, that what I call an eminent treat to humankind!

1/50 of a degree in 112 years.

 

And the recent 3 Month period (Dec-Feb) 1895-2010.

This year, 2009/2010 (Dec-Feb), was the 18th coolest December-February in 116 years.

This year, the Dec-Feb temperature is -2.41 F cooler than for example 1896. And if we compare this years Dec-Feb temperature with 1907 it is -3.26 F cooler.

Another glorious example of the catastrophic warming in the last 114 years!

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 346

8 mars, 2010

More on the Himalayan glaciers from someone who knows what he is talking about, Dr A K Dubey. But it is all voodoo science according to Pachauri, head of IPCC.

http://www.wihg.res.in/institute.htm

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/northindia/Global-Warming-has-no-impact-on-Himalayas-claims-Wadia-Director/Article1-515763.aspx

Global Warming has no impact on Himalayas claims Wadia Director

Ashwani Maindola, Hindustan Times

Dehradun, March 06, 2010

First Published: 12:08 IST(6/3/2010),Last Updated: 12:09 IST(6/3/2010) 

Senior scientists at the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology (WITG) has rejected the Global Warming Theory and told that the Himalayas are quite safer zone on earth, where Global Warming has no role in controlling the conditions.

In an exclusive chat with HT, Director WIHG Dr AK Dubey has said that the conditions of Himalayas are controlled by the winter snowfall rather than external factors like much hyped Global Warming. He told that for a concrete result, at least 30 years of continuous research with steady outcome is needed to confirm the actual impact.

”According to a data for over 140 years available with a British weather observatory situated in Mukteswar (2311m) in Almora has actually revealed that temperature in that region witnessed a dip of .4 degrees,” he said.

Since 1991, the institute is monitoring the Himalayas extensively with focusing the glacial studies and last twenty year data has never witnessed a continual retreat. Sometimes, the recession rates have gone up but on an average the rate is very much safer, he added.

Whatever predictions about Himalayas are being made are based on short-term studies conducted on glaciers, which have no comparison with Himalayan Glaciers, he told. ”Our glaciers are giant high altitude glaciers above 4000m altitude with a permanent temperature below 20 degrees Celsius. And has no comparison with the Alps Glaciers or Alaskan Glacier which are at sea level,” he said.

Dr. DP Dobhal, eminent glaciologist added that however there is a change in climate in terms of shrinking of winter period but still a lot is dependent upon the snowfall occurs. Currently the rate of recession is in between 16-20 meters a year for glacial retreat in Himalayas, whereas 30 percent of the glaciers are more than 10km in length, he said.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 345

28 februari, 2010

Pssst…. Follow the Money!

“Since 1988, when the greatest scare the world has seen got under way, hundreds of billions of pounds have been poured into academic research projects designed not to test the CO2 warming thesis but to take it as a given fact, and to use computer models to make its impacts seem as scary as possible. The new global ”carbon trading” market, already worth $126 billion a year, could soon be worth trillions. Governments, including our own, are calling for hundreds of billions more to be chucked into absurd ”carbon-saving” energy schemes, with the cost to be met by all of us in soaring taxes and energy bills.

With all this mighty army of gullible politicians, dutiful officials, busy carbon traders, eager ”renewables” developers and compliant, funding-hungry academics standing to benefit from the greatest perversion of the principles of true science the world has ever seen, who are we to protest that their emperor has no clothes? (How apt that that fairy tale should have been written in Copenhagen.) Let all that fluffy white ”global warming” continue to fall from the skies, while people shiver in homes that, increasingly, they will find they can no longer afford to heat. We have called into being a true Frankenstein’s monster. It will take a mighty long time to cut it down to size.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html

A perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC

The emerging errors of the IPCC’s 2007 report are not incidental but fundamental, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker

Published: 7:49PM GMT 27 Feb 2010

The news from sunny Bali that there is to be an international investigation into the conduct of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri would have made front-page headlines a few weeks back. But while Scotland and North America are still swept by blizzards, in their worst winter for decades, there has been something of a lull in the global warming storm – after three months when the IPCC and Dr Pachauri were themselves battered by almost daily blizzards of new scandals and revelations. And one reason for this lull is that the real message of all the scandals has been lost.

The chief defence offered by the warmists to all those revelations centred on the IPCC’s last 2007 report is that they were only a few marginal mistakes scattered through a vast, 3,000-page document. OK, they say, it might have been wrong to predict that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035; that global warming was about to destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields by 50 per cent; that sea levels were rising dangerously; that hurricanes, droughts and other ”extreme weather events” were getting worse. These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report; behind them the mighty edifice of global warming orthodoxy remains unscathed. The ”science is settled”, the ”consensus” is intact.

But this completely misses the point. Put the errors together and it can be seen that one after another they tick off all the central, iconic issues of the entire global warming saga. Apart from those non-vanishing polar bears, no fears of climate change have been played on more insistently than these: the destruction of Himalayan glaciers and Amazonian rainforest; famine in Africa; fast-rising sea levels; the threat of hurricanes, droughts, floods and heatwaves all becoming more frequent.

All these alarms were given special prominence in the IPCC’s 2007 report and each of them has now been shown to be based, not on hard evidence, but on scare stories, derived not from proper scientists but from environmental activists. Those glaciers are not vanishing; the damage to the rainforest is not from climate change but logging and agriculture; African crop yields are more likely to increase than diminish; the modest rise in sea levels is slowing not accelerating; hurricane activity is lower than it was 60 years ago; droughts were more frequent in the past; there has been no increase in floods or heatwaves.

Furthermore, it has also emerged in almost every case that the decision to include these scare stories rather than hard scientific evidence was deliberate. As several IPCC scientists have pointed out about the scare over Himalayan glaciers, for instance, those responsible for including it were well aware that proper science said something quite different. But it was inserted nevertheless – because that was the story wanted by those in charge.

In addition, we can now read in shocking detail the truth of the outrageous efforts made to ensure that the same 2007 report was able to keep on board IPCC’s most shameless stunt of all – the notorious ”hockey stick” graph purporting to show that in the late 20th century, temperatures had been hurtling up to unprecedented levels. This was deemed necessary because, after the graph was made the centrepiece of the IPCC’s 2001 report, it had been exposed as no more than a statistical illusion. (For a full account see Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion, and also my own book The Real Global Warming Disaster.)

In other words, in crucial respects the IPCC’s 2007 report was no more than reckless propaganda, designed to panic the world’s politicians into agreeing at Copenhagen in 2009 that we should all pay by far the largest single bill ever presented to the human race, amounting to tens of trillions of dollars. And as we know, faced with the prospect of this financial and economic abyss, December’s Copenhagen conference ended in shambles, with virtually nothing agreed.

What is staggering is the speed and the scale of the unravelling – assisted of course, just before Copenhagen, by ”Climategate”, the emails and computer codes leaked from East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. Their significance was the light they shone on the activities of a small group of British and US scientists at the heart of the IPCC, as they discussed ways of manipulating data to show the world warming faster than the evidence justified; fighting off legitimate requests for data from outside experts to hide their manipulations; and conspiring to silence their critics by excluding their work from scientific journals and the IPCC’s 2007 report itself. (Again, a devastating analysis of this story has just been published by Stephen Mosher and Tom Fuller in Climategate: The CRUtape Letters).

Almost as revealing as the leaked documents themselves, however, was the recent interview given to the BBC by the CRU’s suspended director, Dr Phil Jones, who has played a central role in the global warming scare for 20 years, not least as custodian of the most prestigious of the four global temperature records relied on by the IPCC. In his interview Jones seemed to be chucking overboard one key prop of warmest faith after another, as he admitted that the world might have been hotter during the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years ago than it is today, that before any rise in CO2 levels temperatures rose faster between 1860 and 1880 than they have done in the past 30 years, and that in the past decade their trend has been falling rather than rising.

The implications of all this for the warming scare, as it has been presented to us over the past two decades, can scarcely be overestimated. The reputation of the IPCC is in shreds. And this is to say nothing of the personal reputation of the man who was the mastermind of its 2007 report, its chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

It was in this newspaper that we first revealed how Pachauri has earned millions of pounds for his Delhi-based research institute Teri, and further details are still emerging of how he has parlayed his position into a worldwide business empire, including 17 lucrative contracts from the EU alone. But we should not expect the truth to break in too suddenly on this mass of vested interests. Too many people have too much at stake to allow the faith in man-made global warming, which has sustained them so long and which is today making so many of them rich, to be abandoned. The so-called investigations into Climategate and Dr Michael ”Hockey Stick” Mann seem like no more than empty establishment whitewashes. There is little reason to expect that the inquiry into the record of the IPCC and Dr Pachauri that is now being set up by the UN Environment Programme and the world’s politicians will be very different.

Since 1988, when the greatest scare the world has seen got under way, hundreds of billions of pounds have been poured into academic research projects designed not to test the CO2 warming thesis but to take it as a given fact, and to use computer models to make its impacts seem as scary as possible. The new global ”carbon trading” market, already worth $126 billion a year, could soon be worth trillions. Governments, including our own, are calling for hundreds of billions more to be chucked into absurd ”carbon-saving” energy schemes, with the cost to be met by all of us in soaring taxes and energy bills.

With all this mighty army of gullible politicians, dutiful officials, busy carbon traders, eager ”renewables” developers and compliant, funding-hungry academics standing to benefit from the greatest perversion of the principles of true science the world has ever seen, who are we to protest that their emperor has no clothes? (How apt that that fairy tale should have been written in Copenhagen.) Let all that fluffy white ”global warming” continue to fall from the skies, while people shiver in homes that, increasingly, they will find they can no longer afford to heat. We have called into being a true Frankenstein’s monster. It will take a mighty long time to cut it down to size.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 344

28 februari, 2010

This is a post i didn’t have time to publish a couple a days ago so here it comes:

The Institute of Physics (IOP), a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics, has delivered a very interesting memorandum to the UK Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee. Who are doing an inquiry into the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

This is a very harsh critic and a devastating assessment of the “science” behind the Global Warming Hysteria.

See also

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_cru_inquiry.cfm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/16772/

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry, ‘The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia’.

The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute’s Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ‘self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much ‘raw’ data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: ”…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice...” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.

12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

How independent are the other two international data sets?

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

The Institute of Physics

February 2010

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 343

28 februari, 2010

Here is what I wrote in my post Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 333 on the UN UNEP meeting in Bali (24-26 February).

“The enormous costs and hypocrisy of all the UN conferences.

I have written extensible about the UN pack, this travelling circus that fly around the globe in first class, or private jet, stay in hotel rooms at £400-500 per night in spa resorts, and gets wined and dined at expensive restaurants.

All of this of course paid by us, the normal people.

While they at the same time preach austerity, frugality and sacrifice from us, the taxpayers.

This blatant hypocrisy is so mind numbing that it would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that these people have the power to force us to obey them.

They are a truly parasitic class in the sense that Karl Marx wrote about it.

How ironic that today most of this class is leftists and so called “liberals”.

Well, they the Global Warming Hysterics continuous as nothing have happened.  The latest UN UNEP conference in Bali continues FULL SPEED AHED the march to Global Government. And GIGANTIC “TRANSFERS” OF MONEY from the industrialized western countries.

As I have been saying all along, this has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the environment or the Earth. It has always been a political agenda – anti human, anti freedom, anti development and anti capitalism.

They are now continuing with the Copenhagen goals (which was rejected remember) – a 50 percent reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. That, the paper says, will require a staggering $45 trillion dollars to accomplish.

All of this, as always, paid by the common people in the form of taxes, high energy costs and reduce our living standard back to the Stone Age

As I said, these guys will spend TRILLIONS $ of our tax money.

Do you know what an ENORMOUS, STAGGERING FIGURE a $1 trillion is?  

To give you an idea, here is a graphic presentation of $1 Trillion dollars.

Notice those pallets are double stacked. And remember those are $100 bills.

So our field of pallets is roughly 224ft x 432ft x 7ft high with $100 bills.

At 96,768 square feet, it’s about 2.2 acres and well over the size of a football field.

And now multiply that by 45 to arrive at the figure UNEP want to “transfer” from us, the common people.

For comparison here is $1 Billion dollars.

And for more comparison here is $1 Million dollars (100 packets of $10,000).

 

The pile is 12″ wide, 12.5″ deep and 4.3″ high.

In 2007, the real median annual American household income was $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html

That’s five of these:

Now, go back and compare with the $1 Trillion multiplied by 45.

And how many ANNUAL AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES does it need to get to $45 Trillion? (I know the answer, you figure it out).

Any thoughts or comments???

See some of my post on the drive for world government:

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 3

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover

UNEP background paper on green economy here:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022510_greeneconomy.pdf

What does one TRILLION dollars look like?

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587426,00.html

Bali-Hoo: U.N Still Pushing for Global Environmental Control

By George Russell

“Despite the debacle of the failed Copenhagen climate change conference last December, the United Nations is pressing full speed ahead with a plan for a greatly expanded system of global environmental governance and for a multitrillion-dollar economic transfer scheme to ignite the creation of a ”global green economy.”

In other words: Copenhagen without the authority — yet — of Copenhagen.

The world body even has chosen a time and a place for the culmination of the process: a World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in Rio de Janeiro in 2012, the 20th anniversary of the famed ”Earth Summit” that gave focus and urgency to the world environmentalist movement.

The 2012 summit date is significant for another reason: It marks the end of the legal term of agreement for the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, which includes carbon reduction targets, and provided the legal basis for an international cap-and-trade market for carbon, centered in Europe. The U.S. first signed then backed away from the Kyoto deal without ratifying it; until its apparent collapse, the comprehensive Copenhagen deal was intended to include the U.S. and supplant Kyoto with a new, legally binding regime.

The new Rio summit will end, according to U.N. documents obtained by Fox News, with a ”focused political document” presumably laying out the framework and international commitments to a new Green World Order.

Just exactly what that environmental order will look like, and the extent of the immense financial commitments needed to produce it, are under discussion this week at a special session in Bali, Indonesia, of the United Nations Environment Program’s 58-nation ”Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environmental Forum,” which oversees UNEP’s operations.”

But the major topics are a global system of governance and what amounts to the next stage of a radical transformation of the world economic and social order, in the name of saving the planet.

Alongside that, as always, are discussions of vast sums of money that should flow to developing nations to help them make the transition to the new, greener world. As one of the papers written in advance of the meeting to ”stimulate discussion” puts it, ”the situation … presents genuine opportunities for a dramatic shift from what can be termed ‘business as usual.'”

”Moving towards a green economy would also provide an opportunity to re-examine national and global governance structures and consider whether such structures allow the international community to respond to current and future environmental and development challenges and to capitalize on emerging opportunities.”

The discussion paper, published — but not distributed — on Dec. 14, 2009, assumes that the goal of the green economic transformation is the same as that of the ill-fated Copenhagen conference: a 50 percent reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. That, the paper says, will require a staggering $45 trillion dollar to accomplish — much of it in transfers from rich nations to poorer ones.

The paper, however, paints that as a bargain — ”an average yearly investment of just over $1 trillion.” About half of that would go for ”replacing conventional technologies with low-carbon, environmentally sound alternatives.”

See also

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100027665/welcome-to-the-new-world-order/

Welcome to the New World Order

Climategates, Glaciergates, Amazongates, Pachaurigates and Africagates may come and go, but as far as the UN is concerned the caravan must roll on regardless. (Hat tip: Will8Ace)

Just have a look at this terrifying document unearthed by George Russell at Fox Newsthe one which paves the way for the New World Order destined to be imposed on us in the name of ecological righteousness.

It talks – as, inter alia, does Dave Cameron – of  green jobs and green investment and the marvellous benefits which will accrue from the brave new green economy.

For the most part it’s vague, but in places the mask slips and the true horror reveals itself.

“Moving towards a green economy would also provide an opportunity to re-examine national and global governance structures and consider whether such structures allow the international community to respond to current and future environmental and development challenges and to capitalize on emerging opportunities.”

Bye bye democracy, in other words. Oh, and bye bye your job, your money and your children’s economic future too.

The discussion paper, published — but not distributed — on Dec. 14, 2009, assumes that the goal of the green economic transformation is the same as that of the ill-fated Copenhagen conference: a 50 percent reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. That, the paper says, will require a staggering $45 trillion dollar to accomplish — much of it in transfers from rich nations to poorer ones.

The paper, however, paints that as a bargain — “an average yearly investment of just over $1 trillion.” About half of that would go for “replacing conventional technologies with low-carbon, environmentally sound alternatives.”

These people talk about trillions as if it’s handy small change. Do you want to know what a trillion looks like?

Here’s what a trillion dollars looks like. Now multiply that by 45. Remembering all the while that the crisis which it is designed to alleviate exists only in the imagination of your New World Governors.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 342

26 februari, 2010

I have written extensively about how the temperature is measured, the “adjustment” of the raw data, the cherry picking of stations, the urban heat island effect which officially doesn’t exist according to the Global Warming Hysterics etc.

Here is more on that subject from retired NASA scientist Edward Long the ”adjustment” of the raw rural data by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).

This my friends is another example of the “science” that the Global Warming Hysteria is based on.

See some of my previous posts:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 269

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 268

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 241

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 223

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 222

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 211

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 60

More on the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data and the mess they have

The report is here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf

Also see

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/

Click on the graphs to get bigger

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/a_pending_american_temperature.html

 February 24, 2010

A Pending American Temperaturegate

By Edward R. Long

Our study of data-massaging by the U.S. government agency charged with collecting temperature information raises uncomfortable questions.

We have been repeatedly told (perhaps ”lectured” is a better word) the past twenty years that global warming is occurring. With Climategate and subsequent confessions and bailouts by scientists at the CRU, Penn State, Arizona State, IPCC, et al., we are learning that little to none of the factual content in their ”peer reviewed” articles is true. The Medieval Warming Period did occur, and it was warmer than currently; the oceans are not going to flood the plains; and the Arctic Ocean may not be turning into a summer water park. Of course, the mainstream media, especially in the United States, has reported little of this news, and President Obama appears not to be well-informed. But now the global warming story grows more interesting because here in America, we may have our own little ”gate.” I will call it ATG, for ”American Temperaturegate.”

NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) informs us, based on their ”Adjusted Data” for the period from the last decade of the 19th century to 2006, that the temperature for the contiguous U.S. has increased at a rate of 0.69oC/century. Click here. NCDC arrives at this conclusion by massaging raw data from a set of meteorological stations located in the contiguous U.S. which they selected on the basis of a 2.5-degree latitude- and 3.5-degree-longitude grid. For more on this, click here and here. The most-asked question, most recently by D’Aleo and Watts, is whether the NCDC’s reported increase is correct. Perhaps the value is due to a dominant use (over-selection) of stations in urban locations or because of other issues, such as leaving out stations at higher altitudes for the more recent history and retaining them for the more distant past. 

Here, one aspect is considered — that of the Urban Heat Island Effect, which is tagged as UHIE.

 We selected two sets of meteorological stations (48 each, with one station per each of the lower 48 states) from the NCDC master list. The stations in one set were at rural locations — a rural set. The stations in the other set were at urban locations — an urban set. The NCDC latitude and longitude station coordinates were used to ”fly over” the locations on a computer, using a GPS map application to confirm the rural and urban characteristics. For each of the 96 stations, the NCDC’s raw and adjusted temperature data were entered into a spreadsheet application and studied. The ”raw” data are the annual average temperatures of the measured data. The ”adjusted” data are the annual average temperatures the NCDC derived from the raw data by making a set of ”corrective” assumptions for time of day, type of instrument, etc. and guessing the temperature at stations for missing data based on temperatures of other stations at the same latitude and/or region. For a more in-depth understanding of the NCDC protocols for converting raw data to adjusted data, click here. A summary of the findings is in the following table.  The values in the table show that the NCDC’s rate of increase of temperature, 0.69oC/century, is based on an over-selection of stations with urban locations.

Station Set oC/Century, 11-Year Average Based on the Use of
Raw Data   Adjusted Data  
Rural (48)   0.11   0.58  
Urban (48)   0.72   0.72  
Rural + Urban (96)  0.47   0.65  

 The values in the table highlight four important considerations:

1) The rate of increase for rural locations, based on as-measured (raw) values, is small (if not, in effect, zero) at 0.11 oC/century.   

2) There is definitely a UHIE in that the urban raw data has a rate of increase of 0.72oC/century. This tells us that man has caused warming in urban locations. This finding should not surprise anyone. On the other hand, because the rural value is 15% of the urban value, the UHIE has not caused warming in the rural locations, and it certainly has not caused a global sense of warming other than the aspect that the urban location values when averaged with the rural values produce an average increase which is larger than that of the rural alone. 

3) The rural + urban value for the adjusted data, 0.65oC/century, is still less than the 0.69oC/century published by the NCDC. Thus, likely, there are more urban than rural sites used by the NCDC.   

4) And this is the ”Temperaturegate” aspect: The NCDC’s massaging — they call it ”adjusting” — has resulted in an increase in the rural values, from a raw value of 0.11oC/century to an adjusted value of 0.58oC/century, and no change in the urban values. That is, the NCDC’s treatment has forced the rural value to look more like that of the urban. This is the exact opposite of any rational consideration, given the growth of the sizes of and activities within urban locations, unless deception is the goal.

The criticism this makes of the NCDC’s treatment of historical data for the contiguous U.S. is the same as a recent Russian paper made of the HadCRUT treatment of historical temperature data for Russia. For a thumbnail of the points made in that paper, click here.

Edward R. Long holds a Ph.D. in physics. He is a retired NASA scientist who is a consultant on radiation physics for space flight and on energy/climate in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 341

25 februari, 2010

Some very good points by Harrison Schmitt, a former senator from New Mexico and a geologist. He walked on the Moon as part of the crew of Apollo 17.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-what-we-should-be-doing-about-natural-climate-change/

Climategate: What We Should Be Doing About Natural Climate Change

Just because AGW is a fraud doesn’t mean that we should ignore the natural and cyclical changes in the Earth’s temperature.

February 24, 2010 – by Harrison Schmitt

Earth’s climate changes are extraordinarily complex phenomena. They represent decadal, to millennial, to epochal changes in weather patterns as nature continuously attempts to compensate for solar heating imbalances in and between the atmosphere and oceans.

Nature’s attempts to restore heat balance take place under the complicating influences of the Earth’s inclined daily rotation, movement and release of heat stored in the oceans, aerosol production by many natural processes, water and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, and periodically changing orbital position and orientation relative to the sun. In spite of all these variables and more, the Earth currently controls its temperature in a very narrow range as shown by satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere (troposphere) since 1979.

Global surface and near surface temperatures have risen about half a degree Centigrade (about 0.9 degree Fahrenheit) each 100 years since the minimum temperatures of the Little Ice Age in 1660. Multi-decade intervals of more rapid warming and cooling have occurred during this current, centuries-long general warming trend as they have for over 10,000 years since the last major ice age.

Indeed, by the end of the 17th century, glaciers had advanced over valley farmlands cultivated as those same glaciers receded during the preceding Medieval Warm Period (about 800-1300).  Since the last major ice age, decades long periods of warming and cooling have been superposed on longer cycles, the longest repeating about every 1500 years.

All of this has occurred without any significant human activity.  Cooling between 1935 and 1975 and since 2000, and warming between 1975 and 1995 have been the most recent such variations and correlate strongly with variations in solar activity.

In contrast to these facts, climate change assumptions and computer modeling, rather than real-world observations, underpin the government’s efforts to restrict American liberties and confiscate trillions of dollars of American income in the name of “doing something” about climate change. The scientific rationale behind this proposed massive intrusion into American life requires more than a “consensus” of like-minded climate analysts and bureaucrats. It needs to be right.

Recent disclosures and admissions of scientific misconduct by the United Nations and advocates of the human-caused global warming hypothesis shows the fraudulent foundation of this much-ballyhooed but non-existent scientific consensus about climate.

Still, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other government agencies persist in over-stepping their regulatory authority to jam climate related regulations into our lives and economy at the expense of liberty, jobs, and incomes.  Federal control of energy production and use, advocated by special “climate” interests, will have a vanishingly small effect on slowing three and a half centuries of very slow, erratic, but natural global warming.

A long-term federal and commercial agenda to gather power and profit in the name of “environment” at the expense of liberty has no constitutional foundationThe Tenth Amendment leaves to the states all governance responsibility for environment as no direct or indirect mention of it exists in the Constitution. Prudent protection of local environments by the states and the people does have justification in the Ninth Amendment’s protection of natural rights, including “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as formalized in the Declaration of Independence. The Feds need to butt out!

So, what should the people do now about climate, if anything? We must prepare to adapt to inevitable change, however unpredictable it may seem. We can recognize that production and use of our own domestic oil, gas, coal, and nuclear resources buys us time to meet these challenges and, at the same time, preserve our liberty.

We can develop far better surface and space observational techniques and use them consistently over decades to better understand the science of our Earth. On political time scales, we can quit taking actions with unknown and unintended consequences. We can choose sustained research and development of energy alternatives, those with clear paths to commercialization, rather than continue tax dollar subsidies and loan guarantees for premature or flawed introduction of politically motivated concepts. We can provide investment and business environments that will advance new sources of energy, particularly through reduction of personal and business income tax rates.

Basically, instead of being ideologically greedy and ignoring good science and economics, we can start being wise and truly concerned about our children, and their children, and the society in which they will live.

Harrison Schmitt is a a former senator from New Mexico and a geologist. He walked on the Moon as part of the crew of Apollo 17.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 340

25 februari, 2010

More on NASA’s manipulation of facts and science to spread the Global Warming Hysteria. In this case targeting children.

And remember, they are funded by our taxes.

“Utterly false. Heated masses always emit light (infrared). Always. That’s a direct consequence of molecules in motion. And while it’s true that some substances may be transparent to infrared light, it doesn’t follow that they can’t be heated or, if heated, might not emit infrared. Yet NASA’s misleading formulation implies precisely that. “

“Heat is transferred and absorbed in several ways, then, and no substance is immune from being heated, which means that all gases absorb heat — contrary to what NASA tells children.

So how does NASA go wrong? By consistently confusing light and heat, as you see in the illustration below, where infrared light is depicted as heat. Elsewhere, NASA expresses heat transfer in terms that pertain to radiant transfer alone:”

“Nowhere in its teacher’s guide are conductive and convective heat transfer even mentioned. By selective context and vagueness, then, NASA paints an impression that only light-absorbing substances can be heated. Thus, since nitrogen and oxygen don’t respond to infrared, NASA feels justified to say that ”only some gases have the unique property of being able to absorb heat.”

Astonishing.

But a mix-up like this raises a deeper question: why does NASA go wrong? Because it has a flimsy yet lucrative theory to foist on the tax-paying public, that’s why. As the space agency explains in the Main Lesson Concept, the core idea of greenhouse theory is that downward radiation from greenhouse gases raises the earth’s surface temperature higher than solar heating can accomplish.

To make this idea seem plausible, therefore, it’s crucial to fix people’s attention on the 1% of the atmosphere that can be heated by radiant transfer instead of the 99% and more that is heated by direct contact with the earth’s surface and then by convection. NASA is stacking the cards, you see. If they made it clear that every species of atmospheric gas gets heated mainly by conductive transfer, and that all heated bodies radiate light, then even a child could connect the dots: ”Oh. So the whole atmosphere radiates heat to the earth and makes it warmer. All of the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas.”

 Crash, boom, there goes the theory. And there goes the abundant funding that this fear-promoting ”science” attracts so well. For what CO2 and water vapor emit is miniscule compared to the buzzing multitude of heated nitrogen, oxygen, and even argon, all of it radiating infrared too. Keep in mind that thermal radiation from this forgotten 99% has never been proposed or imagined to increase the earth’s temperature, although by the theory’s very tenets it should.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html

February 25, 2010

The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory

By Alan Siddons

Insulated by an outer crust, the surface of the earth acquires nearly all of its heat from the sun. The only exit for this heat to take is through a door marked ”Radiation.” And therein lies a tale…

Recently, I chanced upon an Atmospheric Science Educator Guide [PDF] published by NASA. Aimed at students in grades 5 through 8, it helps teachers explain how so-called ”greenhouse gases” warm our planet Earth.

These guides are interesting on a number of levels, so I recommend you look them over. But what caught my eye was this:

  • Question: Do all of the gases in our atmosphere absorb heat?
  • Answer: (Allow students to discuss their ideas. Don’t provide the answer at this time.)

Indeed, that’s a good one to think over, yourself. Almost all of what we’re breathing is nitrogen and oxygen — do these gases absorb heat? Lakes and rocks absorb heat, after all, and thereby reach a higher temperature. So can nitrogen and oxygen molecules do the same?

Well, I won’t keep you hanging. After allowing students to discuss it, the instructor is instructed to give them the final verdict.

  • Answer: No. Only some gases have the unique property of being able to absorb heat.

These are the infrared-absorbing ”greenhouse gases,” of course, substances like carbon dioxide and water vapor, not nitrogen and oxygen.

Now, is something wrong here? Most definitely, for NASA has a finger on the scale. Let’s review a few basics that NASA should have outlined.

Heat consists of vibrating and colliding molecules. The motion of these molecules jostles their electrons around, and this emits light. Heat and light are thus strongly related, but aren’t the same. For instance, heat can’t actually be radiated, only the light that heat brings about. By the same token, light itself has no temperature because temperature is an index of molecular motion, and a beam of light isn’t composed of molecules. In short, ”heat” can be regarded as molecular excitement and light as electromagnetic excitement.

Observe how NASA describes this relationship, however.

  • Question: What is the relationship between light and heat?
  • Answer: Things that are hot sometimes give off light. Things under a light source sometimes heat up.

Utterly false. Heated masses always emit light (infrared). Always. That’s a direct consequence of molecules in motion. And while it’s true that some substances may be transparent to infrared light, it doesn’t follow that they can’t be heated or, if heated, might not emit infrared. Yet NASA’s misleading formulation implies precisely that.

There are three ways for heat (better to say thermal energy) to move from one zone to another: by conduction, convection, and radiation. Conductive heat transfer involves direct contact, wherein vibrations spread from molecule to molecule. Convective transfer involves a mass in motion: expanded by heat, a fluid is pushed up and away by the denser fluid that surrounds it. Radiative transfer arises when molecules intercept the light that warmer molecules are emitting, which brings about a resonant molecular vibration, i.e., heating.

Heat is transferred and absorbed in several ways, then, and no substance is immune from being heated, which means that all gases absorb heat — contrary to what NASA tells children.

So how does NASA go wrong? By consistently confusing light and heat, as you see in the illustration below, where infrared light is depicted as heat. Elsewhere, NASA expresses heat transfer in terms that pertain to radiant transfer alone:

The Earth first absorbs the visible radiation from the Sun, which is then converted to heat, and this heat radiates out to the atmosphere, where the greenhouse gases then absorb some of the heat.

Nowhere in its teacher’s guide are conductive and convective heat transfer even mentioned. By selective context and vagueness, then, NASA paints an impression that only light-absorbing substances can be heated. Thus, since nitrogen and oxygen don’t respond to infrared, NASA feels justified to say that ”only some gases have the unique property of being able to absorb heat.”

Astonishing.

But a mix-up like this raises a deeper question: why does NASA go wrong? Because it has a flimsy yet lucrative theory to foist on the tax-paying public, that’s why. As the space agency explains in the Main Lesson Concept, the core idea of greenhouse theory is that downward radiation from greenhouse gases raises the earth’s surface temperature higher than solar heating can accomplish.

To make this idea seem plausible, therefore, it’s crucial to fix people’s attention on the 1% of the atmosphere that can be heated by radiant transfer instead of the 99% and more that is heated by direct contact with the earth’s surface and then by convection. NASA is stacking the cards, you see. If they made it clear that every species of atmospheric gas gets heated mainly by conductive transfer, and that all heated bodies radiate light, then even a child could connect the dots: ”Oh. So the whole atmosphere radiates heat to the earth and makes it warmer. All of the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas.”

Crash, boom, there goes the theory. And there goes the abundant funding that this fear-promoting ”science” attracts so well. For what CO2 and water vapor emit is miniscule compared to the buzzing multitude of heated nitrogen, oxygen, and even argon, all of it radiating infrared too. Keep in mind that thermal radiation from this forgotten 99% has never been proposed or imagined to increase the earth’s temperature, although by the theory’s very tenets it should. You simply take the NASA formulation:

Greenhouse gases absorb heat that radiates from Earth’s surface and release some of it back towards the Earth, increasing the surface temperature

And make allowance for conductive transfer too…

All gases in the atmosphere absorb heat from the Earth’s surface and radiate infrared back towards the Earth, increasing the surface temperature.

Consider too that since most air molecules are infrared-transparent, they can’t be heated by the infrared that CO2 and water vapor emit. This means that downward radiation from ”greenhouse gases” can only explain how the earth’s surface might get warmer, not the rest of the atmosphere. Which underscores, of course, how much the surface is heating this 99% by conduction and convection alone, since radiative transfer can’t do the job.

To repeat: Irrespective of the manner of transfer, all gases absorb heat and all heated gases radiate heat (infrared light) in close proportion to their temperature. Major gases like nitrogen and oxygen, then, do not just radiate heat to the earth below, but the  total of this radiation vastly exceeds what minor players like carbon dioxide and water vapor contribute. Ironically, another NASA publication [PDF] reinforces this point.

In solids, the molecules and atoms are vibrating continuously. In a gas, the molecules are really zooming around, continuously bumping into each other. Whatever the amount of molecular motion occurring in matter, the speed is related to the temperature. The hotter the material, the faster its molecules are vibrating or moving.

Electromagnetic radiation is produced whenever electric charges accelerate – that is, when they change either the speed or direction of their movement. In a hot object, the molecules are continuously vibrating (if a solid) or bumping into each other (if a liquid or gas), sending each other off in different directions and at different speeds. Each of these collisions produces electromagnetic radiation at frequencies all across the electromagnetic spectrum.

… Any matter that is heated above absolute zero generates electromagnetic energy. The intensity of the emission and the distribution of frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum depend upon the temperature of the emitting matter.

Accordingly, any heated gas emits infrared. There’s nothing unique about CO2. Otherwise, substances like nitrogen and oxygen would truly be miracles of physics: heat ‘em as much as you wish, they’d never radiate in response. 

Yet this amounts to a double whammy. For meteorologists acknowledge that our atmosphere is principally heated by surface contact and convective circulation. Surrounded by the vacuum of space, moreover, the earth can only dissipate this energy by radiation. On one hand, then, if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do not radiate the thermal energy they acquire, they rob the earth of a means of cooling off — which makes them ”greenhouse gases” by definition. On the other hand, though, if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do radiate infrared, then they are also ”greenhouse gases,” which defeats the premise that only radiation from the infrared-absorbers raises the earth’s temperature. Either way, therefore, the convoluted theory we’ve been going by is wrong.

An idea has been drummed into our heads for decades, that roughly 1% of the atmosphere’s content is responsible for shifting the earth’s surface temperature from inimical to benign. This conjecture has mistakenly focused on specifically light-absorbing gases, however, ignoring heat-absorbing gases altogether. Any heated atmospheric gas radiates infrared energy back toward the earth, meaning that the dreadful power we’ve attributed to light-absorbing molecules up to now has been wildly exaggerated and must be radically adjusted, indeed, pared down perhaps a hundred times. Because all gases radiate the heat they acquire, trace-gas heating theory is an untenable concept, a long-held illusion we’d be wise to abandon.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 339

25 februari, 2010

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/25/epas-global-warming-power-grab/

EDITORIAL: EPA’s global-warming power grab

Senate should overturn greenhouse gas regulations

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Scientific scandals and record snowfalls have begun to melt away the congressional appetite for more global-warming regulations. On Sunday, to take the latest example, a major scientific journal admitted that ”oversights” compelled the retraction of its conclusion that sea levels were rising as a result of increased worldwide temperatures. Reports of this sort make it increasingly difficult for members of Congress to enter iced-over districts to ask their constituents to make economic sacrifices in an attempt to appease Mother Earth into favoring us with colder weather.

This does not mean, however, that the left has given up on global warming as a means of exerting more government control over the economy.

To avoid a potentially messy vote, President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has turned to the administrative rule-making process to impose climate-control regulations. In December, the agency made an ”endangerment finding” that declared that six gases – including the carbon dioxide you are exhaling as you read this – are putting the planet’s well-being in peril. The first major rule based on this finding will be finalized next month.

President George W. Bush’s EPA administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, warned that such a finding would result in a major government power grab. ”[T]he potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land,” he explained.

Fortunately, Mr. Obama’s team might not get away with it. So far, 40 senators have signed on to an effort by Sen. Lisa A. Murkowski, Alaska Republican, to nullify the EPA endangerment finding. Three Democrats have been willing to co-sponsor the legislation, but Senate sources suggest a number of others may be willing to vote for the bill when it comes to the floor.

Mrs. Murkowski, who takes a moderate stand on the issue, is key to lining up the bipartisan support required for passage. In the past, the Alaska senator has embraced government efforts to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, including a limited form of cap-and-trade. Her resolution is evidence that both sides of the global-warming issue can agree that such a fundamental public-policy question should not be decided by unelected bureaucrats. Both sides also should be troubled by the EPA’s twisting of the Clean Air Act, which originally was designed to cut down on actual pollutants, into regulating so-called greenhouse gases.

Instead of preventing smokestacks from belching noxious fumes and toxic chemicals harmful to the health of human beings, the agency has made its new enemy No. 1 a cow chewing grass in a field. Citing U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, the EPA declared ”enteric fermentation” – a fancy phrase to refer to a cow’s natural emissions in the field – to be the primary source of methane, which is 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in planetary warming.

The EPA placed what it called a ”primary reliance” on reports like those of the IPCC instead of conducting independent research to make its finding. Given the retractions and revelations of faulty science surrounding the global-warming religion, especially at the IPCC, it’s time to take the issue out of the EPA’s hands so Congress can address it in the open. The Senate should pass Mrs. Murkowski’s disapproval resolution when it comes for an expected vote next month.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 338

25 februari, 2010

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522005

Al Gore’s Nine Lies

Posted 02/23/2010 06:54 PM ET

Climate Fraud: The godfather of climate hysteria is in hiding as another of his wild claims unravels — this one about global warming causing seas to swallow us up.

We’ve not seen or heard much of the former vice president, Oscar winner and Nobel Prize recipient recently as the case for disastrous man-made climate change collapses.

Perhaps he’s off reading how scientists were forced to withdraw a study on a projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding two ”technical” mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, allegedly confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that sea levels would rise due to climate change. The IPCC put the rise at 59 centimeters by 2100. The Nature Geoscience study put it at up to 82 centimeters.

Many considered the study and the IPCC’s estimates too conservative in their warnings. After all, Al Gore, in his award-winning opus, ”An Inconvenient Truth,” laughingly called a documentary, foretold an apocalyptic vision of the devastation caused by a 20-foot rise in sea levels due to melting polar ice caps ”in the near future.”

Now Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at England’s University of Bristol, has formally retracted the study. ”One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years,” he said.

According to Siddall, ”People make mistakes, and mistakes happen in science.” They seem to be happening a lot lately, and more than just mistakes. We are talking about outright fraud, the deliberate manipulation and destruction of data.

Last November, Al Gore was hailed by Newsweek as ”The Thinking Man’s Thinking Man.”

Since then we and he have been given much to think about, starting with the damning e-mails from researchers associated with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain. The e-mails revealed an organized attempt to ”hide the decline” in global temperatures, to manipulate data to fit preconceived conclusions, and to discredit and shun reputable skeptics.

A key finding of the IPCC, which along with Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, was revealed last month to be utterly bogus. The IPCC claimed glaciers in the Himalayas would likely disappear by 2035. The only thing they had to back it up was a 1999 non-peer reviewed article in an Indian mass-market science magazine.

It’s been revealed that researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have been systematically eliminating weather stations, with a clear bias toward removing colder latitude and altitude locations. The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35, with only one station used by the NOAA as a temperature gauge for Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The past is prologue. Two years ago, Justice Michael Burton of London’s High Court ruled Gore’s film could be shown in British schools only if material explaining its errors were included in the curriculum. Burton documented nine significant errors in Gore’s film and wrote that some of Gore’s claims arose from ”alarmism and exaggeration.”

The first error Gore made, according to Burton, was in his apocalyptic vision of the devastation caused by a rise in sea levels caused by melting polar ice caps. Burton wrote that Gore’s predicted 20-foot rise could occur ”only after, and over, millennia” and to suggest otherwise ”is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

One by one, Gore’s prophecies of doom and those of the climate charlatans he inspired are being exposed as the work of con artists. From the CRU to the IPCC, the climate dominoes are falling one by one. His silence speaks volumes.

Goodnight, Mr. Gore, wherever you are.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 337

25 februari, 2010

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522120

Investigate Climate Crimes

Posted 02/24/2010 06:44 PM ET

Climate Fraud: A senator wants an investigation of the false climate testimony before Congress and wants Al Gore to reappear. The illegalities may involve more than just lying to Congress.

At a hearing Tuesday by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget, ranking Republican James Inhofe told EPA head Lisa Jackson that man-induced climate change was a ”hoax” concocted by ideologically motivated researchers who ”cooked the science.”

More than that, Inhofe, in releasing a GOP report questioning the science used to support cap-and-trade legislation, hinted that such activities may be part of a vast criminal enterprise designed to bilk governments, taxpayers and investors while enriching those making the false claims.

In asking the administration to investigate what he called ”the greatest scientific scandal of our generation,” Inhofe called for Gore to be summoned to explain and defend his earlier testimony in light of the Climate-gate e-mail scandal and admissions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was essentially a work of fiction.

Since AR4 was released, Gore claims such as rising seas and endangered coastlines have been debunked. IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has been revealed as a collector of anecdotes and student dissertations who had to retract the claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.

Murari Lal, an editor of IPCC’s AR4 report, has admitted to Britain’s Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but included it in the report ”purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”

Even Phil Jones, head of Britain’s tainted Climate Research Unit, has conceded that, yes, the Earth was warmer in medieval times and there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years.

As Charlie Martin of Pajamas Media reports, Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to look into possible research misconduct or even outright criminal actions by scientists involved in questionable research and data manipulation. These include Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Inhofe’s report suggests that the products of such scientific misconduct, used by the EPA and Congress to support draconian legislation and regulations, may violate the Shelby Amendment requiring open access to federally funded research, as well as the Office of Science and Technology Policy rules on scientific misconduct.

The report notes potential violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims acts, which involve both civil and criminal penalties. Charges of obstructing Congress in its official proceedings are possible as well.

We should also follow the money. Researchers have lived off grants spawned by their claims of climate fraud. Oil and coal companies have suffered financially, as have their stockholders. Consumers have faced higher energy prices. Those who’ve made great sums are the very people who promote green energy and green companies in which they’re invested based on the false claims they’ve made.

When you add up the costs of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill and EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, all in the name of fighting climate change, you have a scam that dwarfs Bernie Madoff’s.

Vast sums are being made and will be made through the sale of carbon offsets and carbon credits. Perhaps the Securities and Exchange Commission should investigate the claims of such enterprises.

Gore himself has achieved a net worth estimated by some to be in excess of $100 million by persuading investors to get involved in his enterprises. He’s been touted as possibly the world’s first ”carbon billionaire.”

What if it’s all been a fraud all along? Inhofe may not get his investigation, but certainly it is well warranted.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 336

23 februari, 2010

Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, has today formally called for an investigation into research misconduct and potential criminal acts by the scientists involved – Michael Mann and James Hansen.

The Inhofe EPW Press blog

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs

Sneak Peek into New Senate Report on Climategate

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fa8b3418-802a-23ad-4c52-06f62a53a4e2&Issue_id=

Excerpts of New Senate Climategate Report

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fa8e9e7f-802a-23ad-4a0c-bc0da0ade611&Issue_id=

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/?singlepage=true

Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe To Ask for DOJ Investigation (Pajamas Media/PJTV Exclusive)

Inhofe intends to ask for a probe of the embattled climate scientists for possible criminal acts. And he thinks Gore should be recalled to explain his prior congressional testimony. (Click here for the just-released Senate Environment and Public Works report behind Inhofe’s announcement.)

February 23, 2010 – by Charlie Martin

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate Files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

In [Gore’s] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Science.

This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today’s hearing, alleges:

[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

As has been reported here at Pajamas Media over the last several months, the exposure of the Climategate Files has led to a re-examination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency’s Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Since the Climategate Files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”

Based on this Minority Staff report, Senator Inhofe will be calling for an investigation into potential research misconduct and possible criminal acts by the researchers involved. At the same time, Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

In requesting that the EPA reopen the Endangerment Finding, Inhofe joins with firms such as the Peabody Energy Company and several state Attorneys General (such as Texas and Virginia) in objecting to the Obama administration’s attempt to extend regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Senator Inhofe believes this staff report “strengthens the case” for the Texas and Virginia Attorneys General.

Senator Inhofe’s announcement today appears to be the first time a member of Congress has formally called for an investigation into research misconduct and potential criminal acts by the scientists involved.

The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the Climategate Files and the subsequent revelations:

  1. The emails suggest some climate scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of damaging information and counter-evidence.
  2. They suggest scientists were manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions.
  3. They show some climate scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the “consensus.”
  4. They show that scientists involved in the report were assuming the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity.

The report notes a number of potential legal issues raised by their Climategate investigation:

  1. It suggests scientific misconduct that may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct (which were announced December 12, 2000).
  2. It notes the potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties.
  3. The report also notes the possibility of there having been an obstruction of Congress in Congressional Proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice.

If proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to debarment from federally funded research, and even to criminal penalties.

By naming potential criminal offenses, Senator Inhofe raises the stakes for climate scientists and others involved. Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct. Adding possible criminal charges to the mix increases the possibility that some of the people involved may choose to blow the whistle in order to protect themselves.

Senator Inhofe believes that Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be “let go” from their posts “for the good of the institutions involved.”

The question, of course, is whether the Senate Democratic majority will allow this investigation to proceed, in the face of the Obama administration’s stated intention to regulate CO2 following the apparent death of cap and trade legislation. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science.

For more of PJM’s most recent Climategate coverage, read Charlie Martin’s “Climategate: The World’s Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here“.

Charlie Martin is a Colorado computer scientist and freelance writer. He holds an MS in Computer Science from Duke University, where he spent six years with the National Biomedical Simulation Resource, Duke University Medical Center. Find him at http://chasrmartin.com, and on his blog at http://explorations.chasrmartin.com.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>