It seems reality is finally forcing the abandonment of the folly of the current crop of "alternative" sources of energy.  As I've said here many times, it is a good idea to try and find clean sources of energy to replace oil, gas, and coal.  However, the use of lies about the burning of fossil fuels as the cause of global warming and climate change has been stupid from the beginning, because the truth will eventually prevail.  The lies have only served to discredit some scientists, science itself and harm what are basically legitimate areas of research.  Lies will always come back to bite you. 

Of course lies make fools of people like Al Gore, and this should give the millions who supported him at least a little pause for thought.  Al Gore doesn't care because he has taken the money and run long ago in a classic scam.  Far worse are the billions of dollars of taxpayers money spent to promote the hoax and finance "alternative" sources of energy that are doomed to be economic failures and disaster.  The most notable of these failures are solar, wind, ethanol and to a lesser degree, geothermal energy. 

Now the people are paying for this huge hoax with lost jobs, increased taxes, a more unstable world, governments hopelessly in debt and an increasingly restive population, as we've just seen in Egypt.  Hang on to your hats, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Peter

The EPA: A Tool Of Tyranny.......

What the Obama Administration can not get Congress to do, they can have the EPA do, without the consent of the people they are supposed to be serving. This is not democracy. It is socialist tyranny. Obama is the puppet spokesman for the leftists determined to control every aspect of our lives. Creating fear about climate change is a cold, calculated, long-term plan to tax and control people's use of energy, and to make us (the people) believe we're doing a good thing, by "going green" and saving Mother Earth. Talk about the ultimate scam, the epitome of a grand hoax! Perhaps most insidious, they're brainwashing our children and young adults into believing nonsense like man-caused global warming. Read this, think about it, and weep as you see your freedoms being taken away at an ever-increasing rate.
Peter

EPA choking freedom (source)

FROM- OC Register

Mark Landsbaum

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined." –
James Madison

We've previously suggested what to say to a global warming zealot (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/%20-234092--.html), and even what to say to California's warmist-in-chief, Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/%20-236562--.html).

Unfortunately, the ultimate discussion on global warming may require talking to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If you thought zealots and celebrities-turned-politicians could be difficult to persuade, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Those who would remake the economy in their own image and conform your lifestyle to their vision of a globally cooler utopia are advancing their quasiholy mission with the heavy hand of the unaccountable, unelected bureaucracy at the EPA.

Call it government by, of and for the bureaucracy. Where's James Madison when we need him?

There's nothing as insulated, nothing as isolated, nothing as arrogant as a federal bureaucracy. Think this thought: "I'd like to have a reasonable discussion with someone who will consider my point of view." Now think: "IRS. FBI. Homeland Security." Ouch. The EPA epitomizes the aloof, authoritarian worst of all federal bureaucracies. Don't expect a warm reception.

Several key decisions begin this spring, not the least of which is the beginning of EPA enforcement. With this in mind, here are some EPA talking points, in case you're able to get a word in edge-wise:

Presumptions

We start with the understanding that this nation's founders never intended a massive government bureaucracy to dictate how Americans must live, what they can and cannot consume or manufacture, let alone how much of the stuff they exhale may legally be emitted. The EPA begins with the assumption that we've got all of this 100 percent wrong.

Change of venue

Congress, bless its misguided hearts, at least is a representative body held accountable by voters. That's why Congress, once hell-bent on shoving down our throats an economy-killing, freedom-squashing carbon cap-and-trade law, has backed off. Politicians still can be cowed by public outrage. That's also why global warming alarmists shifted the venue from the comparatively responsive Congress to the utterly insulated EPA. Faceless bureaucrats don't stand for election.

Changing rules

Once upon a time this overbearing regulatory agency restricted its intrusions to matters that pretty much everyone agreed needed attention. Air pollution was a serious problem not long ago. It's debatable whether the might of the federal government was the only, let alone the best, solution. But at least real pollution was a real problem. The EPA has changed that game, perhaps forever, by declaring CO2 to be a harmful pollutant that must be regulated.


Quasiscience

The excuse the EPA uses to exert its regulatory version of martial law over everyday activities is that the globe allegedly is dangerously warming, and manmade greenhouse gas emissions are to blame. Nevermind, that temperatures are, at most, flat over the past 15 years. The only place a cause-and-effect relationship exists between rising greenhouse gases and rising global temperatures is in manmade computer models. Looking beyond the problem of garbage in and garbage out, history tells us a quite different story. As for blaming mankind for rising temperatures, there were far fewer people and absolutely no smokestacks or Hummers centuries ago when temperatures were higher and CO2 levels much higher.

Building on sand

The EPA, incapable of distinguishing pollutants from harmless air, based its war on global warming on findings of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a governmental body, not a scientific body. The IPCC drew on scientific studies, except for those it excluded. IPCC hand-picked representatives, some of them scientists, summarized the findings, selectively including and excluding from the already-screened conclusions. The IPCC came up with an unsurprisingly political document drawn from sometimes one-sided, other times flatly flawed, research, while ignoring inconvenient contrary evidence. Since last year, there's been news aplenty about the IPCC report's frauds and mistakes. Good enough for government work, apparently.

Real science

The EPA's declaration of CO2 as a pollutant ignores its amply demonstrated benefits. Even if manmade emissions did cause higher temperatures, the consequences are likely beneficial not dire. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a network of scientists not funded by governments that stand to gain control. It was established to examine the same climate data used by the U.N.'s panel. But the nongovernmental panel reached "the opposite conclusion – namely, that natural causes are very likely" responsible for whatever changes have occurred in global temperatures. Even so, its conclusion was: "[T]he net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will be beneficial to humans, plants and wildlife."

Arbitrariness on steroids

The 1970 Clean Air Act, which was improperly invoked to regulate CO2, is explicit in determining the level at which atmospheric pollutants trigger mandatory government regulation. As a result of extending Clean Air Act authority to CO2, 41,900 previously unregulated small entities will require preconstruction permits, and 6.1 million previously unregulated small entities will need operating permits. It's impossible for the feds to clamp down on every car, tractor, lawnmower, commercial kitchen or other mom-and-pop establishment. So here's what will happen: Bureaucrats arbitrarily will decide where to draw the line. A line drawn today doesn't mean it won't be redrawn tomorrow. Authority creep is inevitable, except, of course, in the cases of the well-connected, who game the system or grease the skids. Instead of quoting Madison, we should quote George Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

'It's too late' defense

It can be argued that the EPA is acting rashly based on wrong-headed legal interpretations, and justified this with rigged research with a blind eye to contrary evidence. It might be argued that the EPA should hold off regulating until underlying scientific claims can be verified. Don't hold your breath. "It is impossible to independently test or verify (England's Climate Research Unit's) calculations because raw temperature data sets have been lost or destroyed," noted Greg Abbott, the Texas attorney general, who has sued to block the EPA diktats.

Fix is in

The EPA's power grab officially began at the end of March with press releases declaring the agency's "final decision" that issuing "construction and operating permit requirements for the largest emitting facilities will begin." Today, the "largest." Tomorrow "the not-so-large?" The next day, who knows? At this rate you might want to hold your breath. Exhaling soon may be an emission law violation.

Nearly last ditch

Congress will have a chance this spring to reassert authority over the bureaucracy when it considers reining in the EPA. A pending resolution by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, would veto the EPA's "endangerment finding" that declared CO2 to be a harmful pollutant. Stay tuned.

Last ditch.

The EPA's unprecedented claim to sovereignty over things that move and many that remain stationary is being challenged in court by no fewer than 15 states' attorneys general, and private plaintiffs, including 500 scientists, who dispute the IPCC's science. The nut of the challenges is that the government exceeded its authority in declaring CO2 a harmful pollutant, and that underlying science is fatally flawed.

Forecast

We're usually optimistic, but the short-term outlook is bleak, and the long-term is bleaker yet – unless someone derails the high-speed, runaway EPA. Otherwise, James Madison's homeland and yours is in for a stormy climate of arbitrary bureaucrats picking and choosing winners and losers, allowing you less and less to say about it as the government expands its control over American life even further.

More...

The Destruction Of The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming

No, it's not about the "Al Gore Effect" causing the current record-setting snowfall and blizzard conditions in Washington, D.C., it is not about partisan politics, it is about the public recognition and for many, the begrudging acceptance that the idea of man-caused global warming, or climate change is utter and complete rubbish.

It is also about corruption and fraud on a massive national and international scale that has cost taxpayers Billions of dollars, Euros, Pounds and every other currency over at least two decades. It is about a corrupt and dysfunctional United Nations. It is about unethical, naive, and gullible, if not corrupt scientists, in America, and around the world. All this and more is coming to light as the house of cards that was the concept of man-caused global warming comes crashing down.

Should we be angry? Was it just a mistake? Was Al Gore just uneducated and stupid to believe the trash coming from these "climate scientists"? Do we pass this off as just "politics" as usual?
Or, as I say, we had better take what is happening as a wake up call. We had all better become skeptical and questioning about what our political leaders tell us. We had better question every decision, every claim, every policy decision, whether domestic or foreign. We had better not simply blindly assume that they have our best interests in mind. Let this be everyone's wake-up call!
Peter

The great global warming collapse

FROM-The Globe and Mail

Margaret Wente

As the science scandals keep coming, the air has gone out of the climate-change movement

In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.

These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia's nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country's plight, Nepal's top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.

But the claim was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.....
Read entire article here

Climate Change Fraud Continues To Be Exposed

The biggest fraud in our lifetime is being exposed. Imagine, the charlatan, liar, and crook, Al Gore almost was elected President of the USA. Talk about dodging a bullet! I think it is time for the U.S. to pull out of the United Nations. Kick these con-artists out of New York City. Send them someplace where they would be welcome, like Cuba, or Venezuela, or North Korea.
Peter


More Questionable Material Found in U.N. Climate Report
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor
Source

IPCC publicity material circulated in media prior to the release of the 2007 Fourth Assessment report (Image: IPCC)(CNSNews.com) – The U.N. climate report that contains an erroneous claim on the rate of glacier retreat also includes references to studies not originating from peer-reviewed scientific literature, some of them linked to environmental activists.

A review of references listed in the four-volume 2007 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report shows that it includes reports linked to various green groups, including WWF and Greenpeace.

The IPCC has now admitted that the report contains a “poorly substantiated” prediction that Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035.

The glacier claim originated from a 1999 news report that apparently misrepresented one non peer-reviewed study, was reproduced in a 2005 report by the WWF advocacy group, and then – despite a supposedly exhaustive drafting the reviewing process – found its way into the IPCC report.

IPCC defenders have accused critics of blowing out of proportion a single small mistake in a huge document. IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri also noted that it was just “one” error in a 938-page report.

But researchers digging into the document have begun to find other questionable assertions too, again attributed to non-peer-reviewed sources.

-- British investigative researcher Dr. Richard North found a claim in the report that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation.”

The reference cited by IPCC for this claim was a 2000 report produced by WWF in conjunction with another advocacy group, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The two authors are a policy analyst and “forest fire management specialist” who works for IUCN and WWF, and an investigative journalist.

-- Ben Pile, co-author of Climate Resistance, noted that an assertion in the same IPCC report that climate change could contribute to reducing rain-based crop yield in Africa by 50 percent by 2020 had originated from a report by another advocacy organization, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

The IPCC report in the spotlight was one of four released in a series of high-profile events during 2007, and together known as the Fourth Assessment Report. It was six years in the making, and the IPCC said in publicity material at the time that it was the work of more than 2,500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors and 450 lead authors from more than 130 countries.

The Fourth Assessment Report has been used to guide governments in determining climate policies affecting hundreds of millions of people, and by advocacy groups in pressing governments to do more. The IPCC is currently working on its Fifth Assessment Report, and on Jan. 15 opened nominations for authors and reviewers. It is due to be finalized in 2014.

The reliance of peer-reviewed material – material that has been scrutinized by other experts in the same scientific field – is aimed at minimizing the likelihood that unsound assertions can make their way into IPCC reports.

Although the IPCC’s procedures for compiling reports do permit the use of “selected non-peer reviewed literature,” they also stress that the “source, quality and validity of non-peer reviewed literature, such as private sector information need to be critically assessed by the authors.”

The IPCC in 2007 shared the Nobel peace prize with global warming advocate Al Gore. In the wake of controversies dogging the U.N. body, some critics are now calling for the award to be rescinded or returned. (I second this opinion, Peter)

“To restore its credibility, the IPCC should return its half of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize and replace its current leadership,” National Center for Public Policy Research president Amy Ridenour said. The move would “signal to the world that the IPCC is serious about reform.”

Ridenour said if the body did not take that and other steps in response to the recent developments, “the Obama Administration should use its influence to have it shut down.”

Man-Caused Global Warming Defies All Logic And Common Sense (and science)

More common sense observations from here http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
Sea level has risen about 400 feet since the end of the last Ice Age, just 20,000 or so years ago. We are in an Inter-Glacial Period of natural warming which has caused the melting of the continental glaciers which covered much of the land mass in the Northern Hemisphere and was in some places 2 or more miles thick. Nearly all of this melted and most of the water entered the oceans. In general, this is all undisputed by scientists. It can be proven, and it has been.

Yet somehow the global warming alarmists like those now gathered in Copenhagen, want the world to believe we are all in peril from trivial rising sea levels and warming. They spread fear and exploit people's ignorance. It is despicable, and should be criminal.
Peter

"The Greenie message is entirely emotional and devoid of all logic. They say that polar ice will melt and cause a big sea-level rise. Yet 91% of the world's glacial ice is in Antarctica, where the average temperature is around minus 40 degrees Celsius. The melting point of ice is zero degrees. So for the ice to melt on any scale the Antarctic temperature would need to rise by around 40 degrees, which NOBODY is predicting. The median Greenie prediction is about 4 degrees.

So where is the huge sea level rise going to come from? Mars? And the North polar area is mostly sea ice and melting sea ice does not raise the sea level at all. Yet Warmists constantly hail any sign of Arctic melting. That the melting of floating ice does not raise the water level is known as Archimedes' principle. Archimedes demonstrated it around 2,500 years ago. That Warmists have not yet caught up with that must be just about the most inspissated ignorance imaginable.

The whole Warmist scare defies the most basic physics. Sadly, what the Vulgate says in John 1:5 is still only very partially true: "Lux in tenebris lucet". There is still much darkness in the minds of men. "

Why The Global Warming Alarmists Lie.....

As usual, follow the money. It is all about power, control and money. Now the Prime Minister of Norway has the nerve to lecture Obama about how evil America is for not stopping climate change by spending even more Billions of dollars on the folly that is man-caused global warming.
Have these people not read the leaked emails from the climate "scientists"? They scream scandal, hoax, dishonesty and criminal behaviour. The data they collected, then conveniently "lost" does not support man-caused global warming so they create their own data. Then they silence their critics and intimidate everyone else with threats and scare stories. Meanwhile the mainstream media feeds on the sensational images of global catastrophe. All the while poor Obama is being played as a stooge.
Peter

CNSNews.com

On the World Stage, Norwegian PM Lectures Obama on Climate Change – ‘The Most Pressing Challenge of Our Time’
Thursday, December 10, 2009
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor (source)

(CNSNews.com) – At a news conference in Norway Thursday, Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg lectured President Barack Obama about what he called “the most pressing challenge of our time – climate change. We need a strong political agreement in Copenhagen,” Stoltenberg said, standing side by side with the president.

Give us money, the prime minister said: “Developed countries must provide more funding for climate action in the developing world. We need money both for the short term and the long term, and we need funding both from the public and from the private sector.”

In Simple Terms: Why Man-Made Global Warming Is A Myth

The following article is a good summary of the basic, simple, logical failures underlying the concept of man-caused global warming. It is good that the email and data leak, now called Climategate, has surfaced in time for this joke of a climate change meeting in Copenhagen. I say people should educate themselves on the subject as much as possible so they ar not so gullible and accepting of the nonsense being issued by the United Nations and many (most?) of our politicians.
Peter

Four Colossal Holes in the Theory of Man-Made Global Warming
John Hawkins
Tuesday, December 08, 2009 (source)

Repeating the words "scientific consensus" over and over and telling sad stories about polar bears does not qualify as "science." So, why is it that the people who insist that Man-made global warming is based on science, not politics, always get shaky and defensive when people want to actually talk about the reasoning behind it?

When was the last time you heard a scientist get hysterical when you asked him to explain Einstein's theory of relativity? If you ask a scientist why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, he doesn't tell you a terrible story about how koala bears will die if you don't believe the theory is right, does he? Scientists who are confident and in command of the facts don't need to distort data and duck basic questions about the assumptions that are behind scientific theories.

So, why is it that the people who insist that man-made global warming is occurring right now can't come up with coherent answers to many of the most basic problems with the ideas that undergird their theory?

Climate change has been around as long as the earth: If you listen to global warming alarmists, you'd think the climate had been a flat line until mankind started industrializing, after which the temperature rocketed straight upwards. However, the reality is far different, as even the New York Times has been willing to admit:

In October, Dr. (Don) Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."

So, the planet has had bigger temperature shifts than the one we're experiencing now. It has also been warmer than it is today:

The...warming before our last ice age was much warmer than anything we've had since. We had a warming that peaked 9000 years ago, another warming that peaked 5000 years ago. Both were warmer than today. Probably the Roman warming and the medieval warming were both warmer than today -- and we've had 8 warmings of the earth since the last Ice Age.

So how can we, given our limited knowledge of how the climate works, attribute the extremely limited amount of warming we experienced over the last century to mankind? The honest answer is: We can't.

The earth was cooling from roughly 1940-1976: Despite the fact that widespread industrialization was occurring during that 30 year time period, temperatures dropped so much that there were claims we were going into a dangerous period of "global cooling." If global temperatures are tightly bound to man-made greenhouse gasses and those gasses were being rapidly introduced to the atmosphere, then the earth should have been warming, not cooling during that period. The obvious conclusion is that global temperatures are not nearly as closely associated with man-made greenhouse gasses as some people would have us believe.

So, if it's global warming, why isn't there any warming occurring now? One of the many revelations from Climategate is that behind-the-scenes, scientists who buy into man-made global warming are admitting what skeptics have been saying publicly for years now: The globe has been cooling since 1998. Again, if global warming has its bootlaces hitched to the amount of man-made greenhouse gasses that are being produced and those numbers are increasing, why hasn't the temperature gone up as well? There's a simple answer: Man-made greenhouse gasses are not a decisive factor in raising or lowering the temperature of the earth.

Climate models can't accurately project the weather 100 years in the future: The truth is that we don't fully understand how our planet's climate works and thus, our climate models don't work very well. Since the climate models can't explain the climate over the last 25 years and they can't explain the leveling off of temperature since 1998, why would anyone believe they can predict conditions in 100 years? As computer programmers say, "garbage in, garbage out."

The Doomsday predictions from global warming alarmists are absolutely meaningless because they're based on climate models that don't work very well in the first place. As Dennis Avery, co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years has said:

I think they pull their predictions out of their hats and I don't think they have any validity whatsoever.

What the global warming alarmists are asking of people is no small thing. They want us to spend trillions of dollars, dramatically impact our economies, and change the way people across the world live for the worse. Those are not trivial changes and simply having scientists -- who've been put under enormous political pressure and make a living off global warming grants – say, "Trust us, it's real," isn't going to cut it for proof. If global warming alarmists can't even deliver plausible answers to the most obvious problems with their theory, then no one should take them seriously.

Follow The Money To Understand How The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming Has Grown And Been Maintained

Follow the money indeed! The truth and the reality is indeed frightening. The following article from the Tucson, Arizona paper is excellent. I agree with on commentator who says the following about this article:

"This is a good article, identifying many of the key issues. The only thing I take exception to is the concluding sentence: "If the 'warmists' have their way, the result will be suppression of freedom and a criminal waste of resources." No, Jonathan, it's much more serious than that. The prospect of global totalitarianism is terrifying."

Peter

Global Warming Industry Meets Reality

Written by Jonathan DuHamel, Tucson Citizen

Monday, November 30 2009 10:38

It seems that there really is “Mann”-made global warming. It is made of fraud, data manipulation, collusion, squelching dissent, hiding data, deleting data, and punishing scientific journals that dared to publish papers challenging the carbon cabal. The global warming industry is very big business and there is a huge vested interest in maintaining the myth that human carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous. “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” George Orwell, 1984. The upcoming Copenhagen meeting sponsored by the United Nations had hoped for a global redistribution of wealth over the next 20 years of between $6 trillion and $10.5 trillion, according to the draft treaty, to “Compensate for damage to the less developed countries’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees.” Third world governments see dollar signs. In the U.S., the Treasury Department estimates that the president’s cap-and-trade approach would “generate federal receipts on the order of $100- to $200 billion annually.” The Congressional Budget Office reports that a 15 percent CO2 reduction would cost an average household $1,600 a year. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a bureaucrat’s paradise that exists solely to perpetrate the myth, while enjoying frequent meetings at exotic venues throughout the world. Many governments maintain bureaucracies just to “study” the myth. In the U.S., it’s the Global Change Research Program. NOAA, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the National Climate Change and Wildlife Center of the USGS, and the EPA are just a few other federal agencies feeding at the trough. Over the last 20 years, the US government spent $32 billion on climate research, yet has failed to find any evidence that carbon dioxide emissions significantly affect temperature or represent a danger. Government agencies, the private sector, and universities were the recipients of this money. These organizations have a vested interest in maintaining the myth. The feds also spent another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. Solar and wind-power generation of electricity can be a supplemental supply, but these methods could not compete with fossil fuels without a subsidy. These industries have a vested interest in maintaining the myth. The ethanol industry is founded solely on the myth that we must reduce our use of fossil fuels, even though the U.S. has abundant supplies. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Bailout bill) contained $3.4 billion for research and experimentation in the area of carbon sequestration – burying carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuel plants. There are also, really wild schemes for geoengineering, schemes to block the sun with mirrors, or seed the atmosphere with sulfur to produce more clouds. On the world commodities market, trading carbon credits generated $126 billion in 2008, and big banks are collecting fees, and some project a market worth $2 trillion. Al Gore’s venture capital firm, Hara Software which makes software to track greenhouse gas emissions, stands to make billions of dollars from cap-and-trade regulation. If the myth is destroyed, this market will evaporate. Back in 2007, a coalition of major corporations and environmental groups formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) to lobby for cap & trade. The companies planned to profit (at least in the short term) from either the cap-and-trade provisions or from selling high-priced, politically-favored (if not mandated) so-called “green” technology to the rest of us — whether we need it or not, and regardless of whether it produces any environmental or societal benefits. Corporate USCAP members include: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar Inc., Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, Exelon, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, John Deer & Co, PG&E Corporation, and PNM Resources. Has science been co-opted by greed and ideology; has government been co-opted by scientific elitists? In his farewell address, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave this warning: “Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.” “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” “It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.” The Obama administration, which promised to “restore science to its rightful place,” is ignoring events and sailing its ideological titanic to Copenhagen. The vested interests are strong and many. Is the global warming industry “too big to fail?” It remains to be seen whether those interests, and political ideology will triumph over truth and common sense. We should suspend any further consideration of cap & trade schemes and carbon taxes until there is a thorough investigation and re-analysis of the science, costs, and benefits. We also need the government to re-examine energy policy. We need to examine our system of research grants to universities which seems to have been biased toward the politically correct, rather than seeking scientific truth. The global warming industry is predicated on manipulated computer modeling rather than observational data. The touted “consensus” has been shown to be the result of suppression of dissenting voices, and fueled by greed, power seeking, and the perversion of the scientific method. If the “warmists” have their way, the result will be suppression of freedom and a criminal waste of resources. Source

Brainwashing Behind Global Warming Hoax

The following article provides a glimpse of the extent to which people, in particular young college students, have been misled, lied to, and deceived about global warming and climate change. The belief that humans and carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of catastrophic global warming, sea level rise and destructive climate change has truly become religion-like, beyond reason, much less any real science. Emotion, passion and fear rule. Equating it to the rock concert Woodstock as mentioned in the following article, says it all. Changing people's religious beliefs is a difficult task. Think of the Taliban.
Peter

New England sending a crowd to climate talks

Copenhagen draws region’s students, groups

By Beth Daley, Globe Staff November 30, 2009

Last spring, when many people were still only dimly aware of the world climate summit planned for Copenhagen, Josh Minney, a Northeastern University senior, stayed up much of the night writing a paper justifying why he should be allowed to go. He spent months after that trying to raise money and plotting details of a trip he felt could be one of the most important of his life.

When he departs this week - paying his way with credit cards, living out of a backpack, and sleeping at a hostel - he will be one of thousands of students, scientists, college professors and nonprofit groups making a pilgrimage to the Danish capital.

Hundreds will be from New England, with its concentration of universities and environmental bent. Some are planning to sleep on floors in a city where hotels have been overbooked. Scores have received special UN designations to witness the proceedings, but most are going just to be in the vicinity of what they hope will be a historic meeting of world leaders trying to hammer out limits on green house gas emissions.

“This is the party of the century in the scientific and academic world,’’ said Minney, an international affairs student who is attending with 16 other Northeastern students and faculty. “The fate of the world really is hanging on what happens there.’’

Copenhagen is expected to be overrun with 20,000 people for nearly two weeks of talks that begin Dec. 7. Among the attendees will be President Obama and more than 60 other heads of state. Negotiations are expected to culminate in a framework to get climate laggards, especially the United States, to join a final agreement to be completed in Mexico City talks next year.

So many are coming from New England that some local observers joke the number is more than the populations of small nations.

People from at least 20 groups - among them Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business; Cambridge-based EcoLogic Development Fund, which works with poor rural communities to save forests; and Ceres Inc., a nonprofit that works with corporations to prepare for the business impact of climate change - have official observer status allowing them to attend open negotiating sessions.

Those observers have little formal role, but many are holding side events, talks, and debates, or are hoping to conduct research, network, and try to understand the confusing and political world of international climate talks.

The climate fever has sparked some creative financing to get to a city where a cup of coffee can cost $4. Tufts Fletcher School student Odette Mucha raised $300 by selling cookies. Noah Hodgetts, a College of the Atlantic senior in Bar Harbor, Maine, sent out an e-mail blast to family and friends who are now contributing more than $850 for his trip.

The fever hasn’t been cooled by the growing realization that an agreement won’t be reached.

“I am going with a lot of hope,’’ said Hodgetts.

Vermont lawyer Brian Dunkiel is going as part of the diplomatic delegation for the Pacific island of Palau, which is threatened by sea level rise. Arlington Quaker Mary Gilbert wants to lead “earth care’’ interfaith silent worships there. Baby-boomers Roger and Sue Shamel of Bedford are going because they want to let their grandchildren know they tried.

Neil Oculi, a College of the Atlantic student, will be part of the official delegation of St. Lucia, his country. Fifteen students are attending as observers from the small college and his professors urged him to ask the island nation if it wanted his help. It did.

“The St. Lucia delegation is small - only seven of us, including the prime minister,’’ he said.

Oculi, Nasser Brahim, a Yale University graduate student who is part of the Grenada delegation, and others from New England are working with islands because such places often do not have enough funds to be fully represented at climate talks. At the same time, islands are especially vulnerable to sea level rise, a consequence of global warming. Dunkiel, the Vermont lawyer who has worked for years on environmental issues, was contacted by the New York nonprofit Islands First to help Palau.

Hundreds of college students and their professors are attending - at least 79 from Yale alone. For some, the Copenhagen meetings are the subject of their scholarship.

Peter H. Liotta of Salve Regina University in Newport, R.I., part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the IPCC - the leading international scientific body on global warming, will come back to lead a lecture series on the talks. Miquel Muñoz, a postdoctoral fellow at Boston University, is trying to figure out just how much is being spent on the conference. Robert Stavins of Harvard University, an expert on international climate treaties, will be working with governments behind the scenes.

Idealism is the primary reason many others are going.

“Our future is being decided, our voices should be there,’’ said Uxbridge resident Lauren Nutter, 21, of College of the Atlantic. Nutter is also representing SustainUS, a youth-led sustainable development group.

Despite the cost - and hassle - many New Englanders said they felt compelled to go for no other reason than to show the world that US residents care deeply about lower greenhouse gas emissions, despite their government’s reluctance to tackle the issue in the past.

“We want to represent the US to say we care,’’ said Sue Shamel.

Shamel and her husband run a small global warming education nonprofit organization and is going to connect to other climate change groups and offer help.

Those who have attended previous rounds of climate talks offer a caution for the novices: Confusion reigns. And, it can be hard to see your personal contribution at the talks.

“I am going with my eyes open but knowing it is like watching paint dry on the walls,’’ said Adil Najam, director of the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University.

A lead author of the IPCC who has been to other climate talks and is going with more than a dozen BU students and faculty, Najam has gotten requests from people who have no research or other reasons to be in Copenhagen. After explaining to them it probably would not be worth the money, many opted not to attend.

Still, he said, “for many, it is a Woodstock moment. There is a sense it’s important. And you need to be at a place at a particular moment in time to say you’ve been there.’’

Climate Fraud......Be Angry, Very Angry, And Let Congress Know

Has there ever been such a scandal as the creation and perpetuation of this myth of man-caused global warming? Think of the untold Billions of dollars wasted. And it goes on. The recent news is that President Obama is going to attend the climate conference in Copenhagen next month and announce that the United States is going to (somehow) reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.

If Obama can be this badly misled, if he is this naive, this ignorant, what does that say about the other ideas on his agenda?

The mere fact that most of the mainstream media is ignoring this scandal says volumes about their obvious bias and lack of objective, honest reporting. Thank goodness for the internet, otherwise we might never know of this kind of deceitful activity. The following article comes from http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/
Peter

November 25, 2009

You should be angry. Very angry.

by Ian Plimer

FROM-Pajama Media

Climategate: Alarmism Is Underpinned by Fraud (PJM Exclusive)

A decorated scientist and author of the most influential book debunking global warming joins Viscount Monckton in calling the CRU behavior criminal.



In the geological past, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six ice ages, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was higher than at present. It is clear that the colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas called carbon dioxide did not drive past climates. Carbon dioxide is plant food, not a pollutant.

Humans have adapted to live on ice sheets, deserts, mountains, tropics, and sea level. History shows that humans and other organisms have thrived in warm times and suffered in cold times.

In the 600-year long Roman Warming, it was 4ºC warmer than now. Sea level did not rise and ice sheets did not disappear. The Dark Ages followed, and starvation, disease, and depopulation occurred. The Medieval Warming followed the Dark Ages, and for 400 years it was 5ºC warmer. Sea level did not rise and the ice sheets remained. The Medieval Warming was followed by the Little Ice Age, which finished in 1850. It is absolutely no surprise that temperature increased after a cold period.

Unless I have missed something, I am not aware of heavy industry, coal-fired power stations, or SUVs in the 1,000 years of Roman and Medieval Warmings. These natural warmings are a dreadful nuisance for climate alarmists because they suggest that the warming since 1850 may be natural and may not be related to carbon dioxide emissions.

There was warming from 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1976 to 1998, with intervening periods of cooling. The only time when temperature rise paralleled carbon dioxide emissions was 1976-1998. The other warmings and coolings in the last 150 years were unrelated to carbon dioxide emissions.

Something is seriously wrong. To argue that humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.

The answer to this enigma was revealed last week. It is fraud.

Files from the UK Climatic Research Unit were hacked. They show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination.

Data was manipulated to show that the Medieval Warming didn’t occur, and that we are not in a period of cooling. Furthermore, the warming of the 20th century was artificially inflated.

This behavior is that of criminals and all the data from the UK Hadley Centre and the US GISS must now be rejected. These crooks perpetrated these crimes at the expense of the British and U.S. taxpayers.

The same crooks control the IPCC and the fraudulent data in IPCC reports. The same crooks meet in Copenhagen next week and want 0.7% of the Western world’s GDP to pass through an unelected UN government, and then on to sticky fingers in the developing world.

You should be angry. Very angry.
More...

More Evidence Of Global Warming Alarmist Lies

More "hidden" data: The Warmists are so crooked they couldn't lie straight in bed
(source)
Willie Soon [wsoon@cfa.harvard.edu], who is a well-known Harvard astrophysicist, has been trying to prise out of Madame Schuckmann [Karina.Von.Schuckmann@ifremer.fr] the data underlying her recent paper about the oceans warming while the land does not.

Rather predictably, she is not co-operating. Soon has copied the correspondence to me. It's just another example of the Warmists violating basic canons of science. And we know why. When skeptics DO get hold of the raw data, we find that the analyses have been "massaged" unmercifully to produce a Warmist conclusion. If global warming were simply a scientific question, the Warmists would have long ago been laughed into inspissated obscurity. That they instead command large audiences shows that they are for the moment almost entirely a political phenomenon: An integral part of the Protean sinister side of politics.