Lock Up The Climate Crooks And Throw Away The Keys

It is difficult to grasp how much money has been wasted and how much human suffering has been caused by the hoax surrounding the decades-long myth of man-caused global warming/climate change.

What began as an innocent-sounding and appearing effort to understand the world's weather systems and patterns and how these affect humans on Earth was morphed into a bottomless money drain on taxpayers in the form of endless government funding of ever-increasing ludicrous projects.  Billions and Billions (Trillions) of dollars or their equivalent have been largely wasted.  Job creation?  Hardly.  It is like paying someone to dig a hole and then having them fill it in.

What have any of these "climate studies", laws, treaties, taxes, caps, trades, etc. actually accomplished?  Are we any safer?  Are our lives any better?  Is there less flooding, fewer tornadoes, a stabilization of sea level, are polar bears any happier?  Is there less "pollution", is the air any cleaner, are the glaciers advancing, or retreating, coral reefs living or dying, do we even really know any of those things, if we did, do they matter?  Has anything been done other than enrich Al Gore and people like James Hansen, the taxpayer-paid, global warming fathers of global warming alarmism?  They ought to be arrested, tried before a well-publicized jury of ordinary people, and if guilty, fined to their last penny, and locked up forever.

As I see the United States sink farther and farther into debt, not to mention the rest of the world, and I see money wasted on projects like mandated wind energy, solar farms, electric vehicles, ethanol fuel from corn, and a host of other things that are uneconomic, impractical, and used by corrupt politicians to manipulate people and simply serve as a means of collecting more taxes, I become a tad bit irritated. 

I care about America.  I'm not being paid by "big bad oil" to share this material and my knowledge and experience, limited as it may be.  I simply care about the world and its people and I hate to see the future being ruined by these so-called "environmentalists" for future generations.  Honestly, it is not for me.  I don't have that many years left.  I don't like seeing people being conned and ripped off.  Everyone is in far greater debt, (and remember taxation and perpetual debt is a form of slavery.)  I trust nobody likes being a slave, even if it is just a partial slave, and especially not a slave to these "climate criminals".
Peter

source

Climate Criminal Peter Gleick and James Hansen in Racketeering Probe?

Written by John O'Sullivan, guest post | March 01 2012

James Hansen being arrested at Keystone protest sit-in.FBI agents are urged to grill others linked to self-confessed climate criminal, Dr. Peter Gleick in the 'Fakegate’ climate counterfeiting scandal. Evidence now points to NASA’s Dr. James Hansen as accomplice in global warming racket.

Dr. Peter Gleick resigned last Thursday as chairman of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics. Ross Rice, an FBI agent and spokesman from the Chicago field office confirmed an FBI probe is under way, “We are currently working with the [Heartland] institute and the U.S. Attorney’s office in Chicago.

Dr. Gleick's rapid fall from grace has mired other top tier climatologists in what may become a full-blown wire fraud and RICO racketeering investigation by federal authorities. Leading critics are sure that the elements of 18 USC 1343 appear already met under admitted facts.
Questions will now need to be asked about the American Geophysical Union's (AGU) role in enabling Hansen to make a notorious presentation to Congress on June 23, 1988; all thanks to a dubious ‘peer-reviewed’ paper of his that AGU brusquely shoehorned through.

Now identity thief Peter Gleick has been exposed as disseminating at least one forged document used to defame the Heartland Institute, a well-known free trade policy think tank. Gleick admitted to Huffington Post readers that he handled stolen documents. His intent was to injure others – a crime under U.S. Law. Actual financial harm occurred due to Gleick's unlawful release of Heartland's donor list and contributions; one donor has since withdrawn funding.

However, none of the documents distributed by Gleick (other than the fake strategy document) reveal any smoking guns against Heartland. But already, astute investigators have found a worrying link between Gleick, Dr. James Hansen and the AGU that may yet point to a real smoking gun in U.S. climate fraud racketeering from 1988.

Gleick, Hansen and the AGU Complicit in the 'Greatest Crime'
Hansen's paper, foretelling of a world of catastrophic man-made global warming was 'peer reviewed’ to sway an otherwise skeptical Congress. The AGU is thus a vehicle of dubious patronage.

Hansen misled elected officials by deceitfully claiming that carbon dioxide (CO2) from ocean out-gassing and other natural vents has different carbon ratios 'signature' than human 'fossil fuel' emissions. Hansen then successfully duped policymakers into believing human CO2 emissions were linked to global warming. But the truth is that there is no way to distinguish between natural or man-made sources of CO2. Hansen's paper was thus not up to the scientific standard necessary for publication and should never have passed proper peer review.

Thus Hansen’s Congressional charade precipitated the U.S. government’s resolve to fight global ‘greenhouse gas’ warming and blow $100 billion tackling a proven non-problem (despite 30 percent rises in carbon dioxide emissions global temperatures have fallen this century).

Federal agents now have a green light to apply RICO statutes, designed to root out racketeering, based on the following facts:
As a self-confessed climate criminal Dr. Peter Gleick faces incarceration. He has already admitted to being implicated in identity theft, stealing private documents and falsifying evidence to defame, and thus injure the Heartland Institute and others. Gleick is linked via the AGU to Hansen's 1988 paper and by association to other scientists suspected of fraud (inc. hockey stick graph conjurer, Michael Mann).
Over the decades such unprincipled alarmists stand accused of filching millions in taxpayer funds by exploiting public fears in a phony global warming narrative.

How RICO Statutes May Be Applied
If the FBI can show that a fraudulent AGW narrative was knowingly implemented by Gleick, Hansen and other key players, then not only can prosecutions for racketeering be swiftly implemented, but the whole climate science house of cards will collapse.

Federal law sets out the meaning of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961. Identity theft and the fraudulent creation of documents that Gleick dishonestly attributed to Heartland clearly qualifies his crimes as possible racketeering offenses under RICO.

To sustain convictions a pattern of racketeering activity must first be established. This requires the FBI to produce evidence that Gleick, AGU and/or other co-conspirators have engaged in at least two acts of racketeering activity. The law requires that investigators tie together such acts within 10 years of each other.

The burden for prosecutors is not a light one but these riders of the global warming gravy train may well fit the bill as per the test applied by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the 'continuity-plus-relationship test' applied to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern.

U.S. Supreme Court guidelines state that co-conspirators "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." (H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.)

Where Does Climate Politics and Law Go From Here?
Other experts share my opinion that there is sufficient probable cause to follow through with a thorough in-depth federal investigation into the Gleick ’Fakegate’ case to see how far the 'post-normal' climate cancer has spread. Certainly, Peter Gleick should be offered a plea bargain deal if he rats out the other racketeers.

Apologists for climate criminals will not be curbed until the leaders of this 'post normal' academic cult are jailed. But whether the Obama government has the stomach to follow through and permit such prosecutions remains to be seen, as Chicago FBI agent, Ross Rice hinted:
“Whether Gleick, a member of the U.S. intellectual elite and a former student and coauthor with John Holdren, Obama’s Science Adviser, is ever charged is a different issue than whether his acts meet the elements of 18 USC 1343.”

Skeptics have already seen how the British police have stalled for two years despite admissions by one British climatologist of his climate crimes (Dr. Phil Jones could still feasibly be prosecuted under the UK Fraud Act).

If national governments won’t put a stop to it then state prosecutors and civil litigants likely will. Indeed, Glieck's crimes may also be prosecuted under California law. Section 528.5 to the Penal Code deals specifically with such impersonation (SB 1411: Internet Impersonation).
While over in Virginia, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is a high-profile prosecutor adamant he will continue the fight on behalf of the Commonwealth’s taxpayers and expose Michael Mann's hidden misdeeds.

Meanwhile, in Vancouver popular skeptic climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball is making strides defending vexatious libel suits filed separately by Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Andrew Weaver. History will eventually join all such pieces of the puzzle to show how just extensive the climate fraud truly was.

New Species Found

(late addition: dedicated to Andrew Breitbart, a patriot and seeker of the truth.)

Is it rare?  Yes, very.  Is it endangered?  Let's hope not.  (As my usual style, my comments are in italics.)

I just discovered something (someone) very rare indeed, a sceptical (honest) climatologist, and her name is Dr. Judith A. Curry.  Bear in mind Dr. Curry is no lightweight, from her blog:

Judith Curry is Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and President (co-owner) of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN). She received a Ph.D. in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982. Prior to joining the faculty at Georgia Tech, she held faculty positions at the University of Colorado, Penn State University and Purdue University. She currently serves on the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee and has recently served on the National Academies Climate Research Committee and the Space Studies Board, and the NOAA Climate Working Group. Curry is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Geophysical Union.

So where  has Dr. Curry been hiding all these years?  My guess is she has been lost in the vast primitive swamps of politically correct academia where it is career suicide to question the conventional wisdom regarding global warming/climate change.  Why is she coming out now, after so many years in the climate closet?  I don't know, maybe she grew tired of living a lie.  Maybe "climategate" has made being a climate sceptic somewhat academically acceptable.  Maybe she wants to disassociate herself from the scandals at Penn St. (Michael Mann - climate fraud, football and child sex predators).  Maybe she finally feels secure in her career.  I don't know and don't care.  I just welcome her in from the cold and dark.

Here is where I found Dr. Curry sleeping....er.....speaking with the "enemy":
The IPCC May Have Outlived its Usefulness - An Interview with Judith Curry

The enemy in this case is a website titled oilprice .com.  Imagine the horror going through the ranks of Al Gore's global warming true-believers!  They are probably on suicide watch.  It gets better, and I couldn't be happier.  I almost feel vindicated because I've stuck my timid little professional neck out on the line about what I've long called "the myth of man-caused global warming.  This blog is testimony to that.  Here is a thought along those lines:

“The acid test of intelligence is whether the things you believe in turn out to be true.” — James R. Cook

Here is the beginning of the interview with Dr. Curry.

The IPCC May Have Outlived its Usefulness - An Interview with Judith Curry

By James Stafford | Mon, 27 February 2012 23:22 | 22

As the global warming debate increases in its intensity we find both sides deeply entrenched, hurling accusations and lies at one another in an attempt to gain the upper hand. This divide within the scientific community has left the public wondering who can be trusted to provide them with accurate information and answers.
The IPCC, the onetime unquestioned champion of climate change, has had its credibility questioned over the years, firstly with the climategate scandal, then with a number of high profile resignations, and now with the new “Gleickgate” scandal (1) (2) – One has to wonder where climate science goes from here?

We have just had the pleasure of interviewing the well known climatologist Judith A. Curry in order to get her thoughts on climate change, the IPCC, geo-engineering, and much more.
Judith is the current chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and hosts sensible discussions on climate change at her popular blog Climate, etc.
Considered somewhat of a black sheep within the scientific community Judith was a one time supporter of the IPCC until she started to find herself disagreeing with certain policies and methods of the organization. She feared the combination of groupthink and political advocacy, combined with an ingrained "noble cause syndrome" stifled scientific debate, slowed down scientific progress, and corrupted the assessment process.  (continued here.)

Now, let's here a few key comments.  (My observations in italics.)

OP: What are your personal beliefs on climate change?JC: The climate is always changing. Climate is currently changing because of a combination of natural and human induced effects. The natural effects include variations of the sun, volcanic eruptions, and oscillations of the ocean. The human induced effects include the greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, pollution aerosols, and land use changes. The key scientific issue is determining how much of the climate change is associated with humans. This is not a simple thing to determine.  (Nothing new here, just the admission that there are "natural" causes of climate change, as if humans are somehow not "natural", a radical departure from the mainstream liberal ideology.  Peter)

JC: I absolutely think that more effort is needed in determining the effect of the sun on our climate. The sun is receiving increased attention (and funding),  (Again, nothing new, just something obviously long overdue.  Peter)

OP: You are well known in climate and energy circles for breaking from the ranks of the IPCC and questioning the current information out there. What do you see as the reasons for the increase in skepticism towards global warming over the last few years.

JC: Because of the IPCC and its consensus seeking process, the rewards for scientists have been mostly in embellishing the consensus, and this includes government funding. Because of recent criticisms of the IPCCIPCC, and I think this is a healthy thing for the science.  (Again, this is something I and many others have been saying all along.  Add to the blackmail and constant subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle threats climate skeptics have received.  Peter)

OP. What are your views on the idea that CO2 may not be a significant contributor to climate change? How do you think such a revelation, if true, will affect the world economy, and possibly shatter public confidence in scientific institutions that have said we must reduce CO2 emissions in order to save the planet?

JC: Personally, I think we put the CO2 stabilization policy ‘cart’ way before the scientific horse. The UN treaty on dangerous climate change in 1992 was formulated and signed before we even had ‘discernible’ evidence of warming induced by CO2, as reported in 1995 by the IPCC second assessment report.  (Demonizing CO2 was a tactic, clever, but ridiculous from the beginning.  A way of baffling the public with scientific jargon (Bull$hit), collecting taxes, selling carbon credits and enriching Al Gore.  Peter)

OP. You have been noted to criticize the IPCC quite openly in the past on several topics.
Even going so far as to say: “It is my sad conclusion that opening your mind on this subject (climate change controversy) sends you down the slippery slope of challenging many aspects of the IPCC consensus.”

Do you believe that the organization as a whole needs to be assessed in order to better serve progress on climate change? What suggestions do you have on how the organization should function?

JC: The IPCC might have outlived its usefulness.  (Send the entire United Nations packing.  All they do is waste taxpayer's money and spread their one-world-government ideology and socialism.  And send Hillary and her lust for gun control with them.  Peter)

OP. Would renewable energy technologies have received the massive amounts of funding we have seen over the last few years without global warming concerns?

JC: I think there are other issues that are driving the interest and funding in renewables, including clean air and energy security issues and economics, but I agree that global warming concerns have probably provided a big boost.  (To say the least!  There are many reasons to promote the myth of man-caused global warming....try corruption....Solyndra?  Political contributions from liberal environmental groups, a desire to control the energy industries of the world, a desire to rule the world, destroy America........there are many reasons to frighten people about global warming/climate change.  Peter)

 “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
 alarmed–and hence clamorous to be led to safety–by menacing

it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them

imaginary.” — H. L. Mencken

OP. What do you believe are the best solutions to overcoming/reversing climate change; is a common consensus needed in order to effectively combat climate change?

JC: The UN approach of seeking a global consensus on the science to support an international treaty on CO2 stabilization simply hasn’t worked, for a variety of reasons.(Science does not operate by consensus.  Science must seek the truth and must be apolitical, non-partisan.  Peter)


OP. I saw an interesting comment on another site regarding climate science that i thought i’d get your opinion on as it raises some very interesting arguments:

"Climate science has claimed for 30 years that it affects the safety of hundreds of millions of people, or perhaps the whole planet. If it gets it wrong, equally, millions may suffer from high energy costs, hunger due to biofuels, and lost opportunity from misdirected funds, notwithstanding the projected benefits from as yet impractical renewable energy.
Yet, we have allowed it to dictate global policy and form a trillion dollar green industrial complex - all without applying a single quality system, without a single performance standard for climate models, without a single test laboratory result and without a single national independent auditor or regulator. It all lives only in the well known inbred, fad-driven world of peer review."

JC: I agree that there is lack of accountability in the whole climate enterprise, and it does not meet the standards that you would find in engineering or regulatory science. I have argued that this needs to change, by implementing data quality and model verification and validation standards.  (Bingo, right on the money, Trillions of dollars, millions of people suffer and die on the altar of global warming fear.  Peter)

OP: Do you believe that the language used in papers and at conferences is a problem? The public just wants straight answers to questions: Is the climate warming, By how much, and what will the effects be? Scientists need to step out from behind the curtain and engage the public with straight answers and in their own words. Is this achievable, or is climate science too complex to be explained in laymen’s terms? Or is it because even climate scientists can’t agree on the exact answers?

JC: I think the biggest failure in communicating climate science to the public has been the reliance on argument from consensus. We haven’t done a good job of explaining all this, particularly in the context of the scientific disagreement.  (We have conditioned our people to behave like sheep and follow the herd (consensus).  Of course that is what those who seek to rule us, the liberals, socialists, progressives, Democrats, want....power and control.  Peter)





 

If You Don't Want To Help Solve Our Energy Problems?......Then Get Out Of The Way.....

If you feel the pinch on your budget when you're filling up at the gas pumps, look no further than the environmental lobbyists and activists for the culprits.  America has more oil and gas reserves than most people understand.  See here.

We don't have to be spending Billions (Trillions?) on foreign wars to protect the oil supplies in the Middle East.  And of course there is no way to put a value on the lives lost and damaged.  Do we want to be free and independent or be ruled by elitist armchair environmentalists?  These people, (Al Gore and Solyndra come to mind, are laughing all the way to the bank with taxpayers money in their pockets.)  We need to encourage oil and gas production.  We know we have the resources, we know how to use them, and now we know the whole man-caused global warming/climate change alarm was a giant hoax.
Peter

‘Enough of This!’ -- Boehner Tells 'Radical' Greens to Stop Standing In Way of Energy Policy

By Elizabeth Harrington

February 28, 2012

 

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he’s had enough of environmentalists standing in the way of energy production over the last three decades, remarking, “It’s just about damn time that we ought to have a national energy policy and do something the American people want us to do.”

At a Tuesday press conference on Capitol Hill with several other House Republicans, Boehner was asked about the relationship between high gas prices and investment speculators on Wall Street.
Boehner said, “The price of gas is driven by two factors. It’s driven by supply and it’s driven by demand. And the fact is, is that supply, most of it, comes from the Middle East where there’s an awful lot of turmoil. People are concerned about whether that flow of oil is going to continue.”

Boehner continued: “Secondly, when you look at demand we’re moving into the summer driving season and the [Environmental Protection Agency] EPA requires 30 different blends of gasoline to be produced, now for the summer months in most of the country. And then to try to produce those 30 different blends and then ship them puts an awful lot of demand on the system as a result. You’ve got much higher prices.”

“Americans understand that we can produce more of our own energy,” he said.  (Democrats don't seem to understand this.  Peter) “And they don’t understand why 35 years -- since the oil embargo of 1974 -- that we’ve never had a national energy policy.”

“We’ve got a handful of environmentalists groups -- radical environmental groups -- who’ve stood in the way of having a national energy policy all of these years and it’s just about damn time that we ought to have a national energy policy and do something the American people want us to do,” said Boehner. “Enough of this! Get out of here!”

(continued here)

Surprise, Surprise: There Was Climate Change In Ancient Bagdad

Quick, someone tell Al Gore, Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, the United Nations and all the other irrational climate alarmists that it is now officially recognized that climate change was taking place in ancient Bagdad.  Who would ever have dreamed that long before we began burning large amounts of those evil "fossil fuels" and polluting the atmosphere with nasty "carbon"dioxide that there was climate change going on? 

I think maybe all those who fear climate change should go back and take a Geology 101 class.  Or better yet, maybe our educators might think about teaching the truth for a change.   That is the kind of change I believe in.
Peter

Hailstorms, Wacky Weather Chilled Ancient Baghdad

By Stephanie Pappas | LiveScience.com – 16 hrs ago

Diaries and writings from ninth-century Baghdad provide a glimpse of the weird weather from the era, findings that could help researchers reconstruct past climate.

The surviving documents were written by historians and scholars during the Islamic Golden Age between A.D. 816 and A.D. 1009. They provide a new human record of climate, joining old ship's logs and World War II air force reports as one of the few sources for detailed information on historical weather.

"Climate information recovered from these ancient sources mainly refers to extreme events which impacted wider society, such as droughts and floods," study researcher Fernando Domínguez-Castro of the University of Extremadura in Spain said in a statement. "However, they also document conditions which were rarely experienced in ancient Baghdad such as hailstorms, the freezing of rivers or even cases of snow."  (Some things never change; they only report the exceptional and the sensational.  The Weather Channel would be proud.  Peter)

Many of the writings from the Islamic Golden Age have been lost in wars and upheaval. But some works survive, including those of Sunni scholar al-Tabari (A.D. 913), Kurdish historian Ibn al-Athir (A.D. 1233) and Egyptian scholar al-Suyuti (A.D. 1505). [Top 10 Battles for Control of Iraq]

Domínguez-Castro and his colleagues collected and analyzed these documents and found that they revealed a pattern of increasing frequency of cold-weather events in the early 10th century. July A.D. 920 was unusually cold, perhaps because of a volcanic eruption, Domínguez-Castro said. It snowed in Baghdad in 908, 944 and 1007. The only snow in living memory in the city was in 2008.

The findings suggest that Iraq's climate was more prone to unusually chilly events than it is today.

"Ancient Arabic documentary sources are a very useful tool for finding eye-witness descriptions which support the theories made by climate models," said Domínguez-Castro. "The ability to reconstruct past climates provides us with useful historical context for understanding our own climate."

Decades Of Environmental Fraud Being Exposed

Maybe it is taking economic disaster, massive unemployment, bottomless governmental debt, despair, hopelessness, bitter partisan politics, and rioting in the streets, (to name a few of the symptoms of the illnesses afflicting the world) to wake us up to the fact that modern "environmentalism" may actually be the PROCESS by which this illness spreads.  The illness is a deadly CANCER on society.  This deadly cancer is the idea of ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  The idea that ONE group of men (people), an "elite" group for sure, can and SHOULD control ALL others.  Call it socialism, welfare state, nanny state, communism, or fascism......it is EVIL and has caused more deaths and suffering than any movement in human history.

If they can't do it through climate control, they will do it through health control, or water control, or through the creation of massive debt and perpetually higher taxation (slavery).  Who are "they"?  We know the names well by now, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, etc. and now the principal flag-carrier, Obama.  We must fight this trend with everything we can.  Destroying the myth of man-caused global warming/climate change is a good beginning.  The following article summarizes some of the issues well.
Peter 

The entire fraudulent environmental house of cards is crashing down.......and that is a very good thing.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9994-peter-gleicks-actions-exposes-end-justifies-means-mentality-poses-problem-for-un-agenda-21?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climatechangedispatch%2FnkcO+%28Climate+Change+Dispatch+news%29

Peter Gleick’s Actions Exposes “End Justifies Means” Mentality: Poses Problem for UN Agenda 21

www.climatechangedispatch.com

 

 

Peter Gleick’s Actions Exposes “End Justifies Means” Mentality: Poses Problem for UN Agenda 21

Written by Dr. Tim Ball, guest post | February 25 2012

Peter Gleick - (Photo credit: World Economic Forum)

Peter Gleick obtained documents falsely from the Heartland Institute (HI) and used them to vilify that organization. HI was a major target for promoters of human caused climate change because they dared to hold international conferences presenting the other side of the climate debate. This was actively surpressed by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Climatic Research Unit (CRU) members, as leaked emails showed. (Disclosure; I was privileged to be a keynote speaker at the first conference in New York and commented in my opening remarks, I’ve waited thirty years for this day.)

Gleick’s activities apparently manifest a groupthink mentality of several faculty at Stanford University. The late faculty member and grandfather of IPCC, Stephen Schneider, delineated it in Discover magazine in 1989.

“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, wed 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 publics 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. (Precisely the problem,; this is not science, but politics and it is NOT good.  Peter)  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.”

The penultimate sentence is wrong frightening and not justified by the last sentence as Schneider apparently thought. Scientific ethicist Gleick agreed with Schneider as he wrote, “He taught me and many others he mentored to understand and honor the science, but he also taught us the importance of speaking up in defense of the integrity of science and the public interest. “

Gleick is fully compromised, but will likely continue because of his claims about water. It’s the environmental vehicle replacing climate for achieving government control, nationally and internationally.

Stanford University was the academic centre for issues that framed the Club of Rome (COR). Pivotal publications included Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb, but predictions were set out primarily in Limits to Growth using simplistic computer models. They extended the Malthusian idea that population would outgrow food supply and applied it to all resources with amplification by capitalism and fossil fuel driven economies. Almost all the predictions were disastrously wrong.

Others involved were PhD Stanford graduate John Holdren, co-author with Ehrlich, and now Obama’s Science Czar. Gleick’s water research is referenced throughout their works.

Water was central to the COR concerns, probably with Gleick’s influence. Their agenda was incorporated into United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) specifically as Agenda 21. At the 1977 United Nations ‘Water Conference’ they set up the International Drinking Water Decade as 1981 – 1990. People involved with this project were associated with the COR and the plans for One World government. Central was socialist Barbara Ward, former Cabinet Minister in the UK government. In an article titled “Only One World: An Awakening” Stephen Berry quotes Ms. Ward, “We may be on the way to a new moral reality.” This view pervades all the policies emanating from the UN, the COR and the environmental movement of the last 40 years.

The objective is one world government with almost total control.

Environment became a vehicle for social control of individual countries and suppression of capitalism and technology. Strong used the UNEP with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Neil Hrab wrote: “What’s truly alarming about Maurice Strong is his actual record. Strong’s persistent calls for an international mobilization to combat environmental calamities, even when they are exaggerated (population growth) or scientifically unproven (global warming), have set the world’s environmental agenda.” Now that warming has failed as the political vehicle water is rapidly advancing as a replacement.

Mark Dubrulle: 40-year member of the COR was asked in 2008, “Is water an issue within this consultation process and the general program of the Club of Rome?” He replied, “Resources include water by definition. We have within the Club very distinguished members who already years ago draw our attention on the problem of water. We intend to play an active role in the debate on water resources, water supply and water consumption, with a very critical attitude towards the current policies. Ian Johnson, the new Secretary General of the international Club of Rome, clearly stated that water is one of the big challenges, perhaps even more important than oil.”

The 74 Club book explains they believe “democracy has failed and new forms of governance are required”. They determined that “a common enemy must be found, one either real or invented, to unite humanity." They explain, “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”

Schneider’s dilemma is non-existent; the truth is the only option. Gleick’s unethical actions indicate he believes it’s an option and the end justifies the means. We are on notice, so diligence about all water resources claims is required.

Regarding truth and science you might also like to look here: 

http://thefellowshipofscientifictruth.blogspot.com/

Environmental Falsehoods Are Costly And Common

The ClimateGate leaking of Emails and computer climate programs revealing the corruption, deceit and lies by "climate scientists"promoting the myth of man-caused global warming is just the tip of the iceberg where the "environmental movement" is concerned. This disease costs everyone dearly and will take a long, long time to cure. Maybe ClimateGate will be a beginning of much needed change into how science is conducted and viewed by the public. Thank goodness for the internet!
Peter

 

 

 

 

Mirror, Mirror On The Wall, Who's The Greenest Of Them All?

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the greenest of them all? Think about it; all this nonsense about "saving Mother Earth" is bankrupting America, if not the world. Or it is at least making a huge contribution in that direction. All the Billions spent are not making the climate any more comfortable or safe, nor will they. Any honest geologist or earth scientist could have told you that decades ago. It is time for everyone to wake up and realize we've been defrauded by these climate alarmists. The following article says it well.
Peter
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9965-greener-than-thou?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climatechangedispatch%2FnkcO+%28Climate+Change+Dispatch+news%29See More

Greener Than Thou

www.climatechangedispatch

The most obnoxious and hypocritical people are those who are always preaching a “greener” way of life, insisting that anything that constitutes our modern lifestyles is destroying the Earth and depleting its natural resources. Never mind that we depend upon oil, natural gas, coal, and a host of minerals and chemicals for that lifestyle, the absence of which caused people in earlier eras to live shorter, far more unpleasant lives.

Oil, other than just an energy source is also a component in countless products, starting with plastic, and is so vital to modern life that its value goes far beyond just being able to drive our cars to visit grandma.

Greener than thou has replaced holier than thou ever since Rachel Carson penned her pernicious and seriously flawed attack on DDT and other chemicals, fertilizers and pesticides in 1962. The result has been the needless deaths of millions from malaria in Africa and subtropical nations after the U.S. banned DDT and other nations followed suit. If there was a comparable pesticide available today, the U.S. would not be suffering a biblical plague of bed bugs.
read more

Obama In La La Land: Algae For Fuel? He Must Be Joking

Combustible fuels can be made from all kinds of organic matter, from corn to manure.  Algae is little different.  What makes these ideas so ridiculous is their small scale.  Compare them to the tens of thousands of feet of organic-rich shale rocks in ancient sedimentary basins found all over the world.  That is where the oil and gas fuel that powers the world really comes from.  These miraculous-sounding alternative sources of energy are miniscule compared to what the liberal media has so demonized by using the term "fossil fuels". 

Someone needs to inform the public about the truth of this matter, to put it into perspective and explain it in a way everyone can understand.  We're sure not getting the straight story from President Obama.  But then we can't expect too much of him, he's just a "community organizer" from Chicago......or so the story goes.

Hopefully he is just simply ignorant and not being purposely misled by his advisors, or "handlers"?
Peter

Oh yes, and this is freaking brilliant.......fuel to solve our energy problems by creating it from algae. Geezus who is advising this poor sod?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-energy-plan-algae

Obama's Energy Plan -- Algae | CNSNews.com

cnsnews.com

President Barack Obama speaks at the University of Miami Field House in Coral Gables, Fla., Thursday, Feb. 23, 2012. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)