President Obama will be attending the Copenhagen UN climate change conference on December 18 where he will be an active participant “as [in the words of 'The White House Blog' for Dec. 10] the global community, with the United States in a leading role, works towards securing the strongest possible outcome in Copenhagen.”
Jesse Ventura and a team of expert investigators are on a mission to examine some of the most frightening and mysterious conspiracy allegations of our time. They examine available evidence as well as talking to experts and eyewitnesses to learn more about such topics as global warming, possible 9/11 cover-ups, secret government weapons and apocalyptic prophecies. “This is my personal journey,” Ventura says, “to prove that there is more to these stories than you know about.”
Global Warming – NEW!
Premiere On: Wed, December 16 at 10:PM
Whether global warming is real or not, it’s believed some people are using the issue to make billions of dollars, start a one-world government and control our lives, from the cars we drive to the foods we eat. Jesse Ventura starts with Al Gore and goes far beyond as he uncovers the evidence that leads to one man thought to be behind the global warming conspiracy.
As global-warming alarmists met at the United Nations’ COP15 Climate Summit, attempting to create the impression that the science supporting their alarmism was settled, a group of scientists and activists held acompeting summit in Copenhagen last week to dismiss the whole notion that there is a scientific consenses or that the world is facing a man-made global-warmng crisis.
The “skeptics” conference, as it was dubbed by the relatively few media outlets that covered the event, brought together prominent scientists from around the globe. The “Copenhagen Climate Challenge Conference” — which included between 50 and 75 participants — was organized by the Danish organization Climate Sense and the U.S.-based Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).
“There are people who know they are lying and do it simply for money and others who think they are doing good,” explained Graham Capper of Climate Sense. “But they are not good scientists.” He also called global warming a “myth.”
Craig Rucker, the executive director of CFACT and the conference chairman, also blasted the alarmism. “We think there is no consensus on climate change and there should not be a treaty from Copenhagen based on a lack of consensus,” he said, adding that the world should have the courage to “do nothing until the science is clear.”
Among the speakers who received the most attention was Professor Niklas Nils-Axel Mörner, a prominent scientist and oceanographer who works at Stockholm University and researches sea levels. He chastised the president of the Maldives for claiming that the island nation would soon disappear. According to Mörner, who has studied the Maldives extensively, “we must rely on the facts, and the facts don’t support the president.”
He noted that some of the “very weird” climate models claim Bangladesh could be flooded by up to several meters of sea rise. But this scenario is “not even within the laws of physics,” he said, adding that it was “completely nonsense.” The professor has studied both areas’ sea levels extensively.
Mörner said various groups were using theories about global warming as an excuse to scam money out of the international community, and that these same interests simply claim nothing can be done about actual environmental problems affecting their nations that they actually could and should work on solving. “We are the real environmentalists,” he said.
Other prominent scientists also offered expertise in their fields. Danish National Space Center physicist Henrik Svensmark explained that the world went through a similar cycle during the Middle Ages, and that the true cause was in fact the Sun. Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project and also an atmospheric physicist who has participated in several UN climate summits, put it bluntly: “They have no evidence. None.”
Lord Monckton, who has grabbed headlines worldwide with his passionate opposition to the UN “climate” agenda, also attended the meeting. Geologists, authors, nobility, and even a former clergyman who has taken an interest in climate science all took part in the event and offered a diverse array of opinions. But on some points the alternative climate conference was unanimous: The nearby UN summit and its agenda are based on inaccurate science and their agenda must be stopped for the good of humanity.
Nearly every media report about the event noted that ExxonMobil had provided some funding for the group. What most of those articles did not mention is that the oil industry — and especially the Rockefeller family — have bankrolled countless global-warming alarmists and events, such as the so-called “350” global warming protest that took place in late October.
It is certainly refreshing to hear a group of scientists challenge the UN global-warming agenda in Copenhagen on the occasion of the COP15 Summit. With the revelations from Climategate fresh in the public’s mind, this event should have received far more coverage. Of course, the skeptics do not have national treasuries at their disposal to put on shows like the UN Climate Summit. But what is clear is that the science is far from settled. Anyone who claims otherwise is either uninformed or a liar.
In the wake of the “Climategate” revelations and accusations from members of the U.S. Congress that scientists allegedly implicated in efforts to suppress studies undermining the theory of manmade climate change were engaged in “scientific fascism,” the inevitable push back has begun.
The 31,000 American scientists who have signed the petition opposing the Kyoto agreement all agree that:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
For some reason their skepticism regarding anthropogenic global warming doesn’t get much attention from the media. Go figure.
Now 1,700 British scientists have signed a petition in support of the troubled theory, and it’s a safe bet that they will have a much easier time getting the ear of the press.
The Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furore over stolen e-mails.
More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.
One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.
John Hirst, the Met Office chief executive, and Julia Slingo, its chief scientist, wrote to 70 colleagues on Sunday asking them to sign “to defend our profession against this unprecedented attack to discredit us and the science of climate change”. They asked them to forward the petition to colleagues to generate support “for a simple statement that we . . . have the utmost confidence in the science base that underpins the evidence for global warming”.
But despite protestations of spontaneity, there are apparently some scientists who felt they were pressured to sign.
One scientist told The Times he felt under pressure to sign. “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said.
Professor Slingo denied that the Met Office had put anyone under pressure. “The response has been absolutely spontaneous. As a scientist you sign things you agree with, not because you are worried about what the Met Office might think of you,” she said.
Peer pressure is a very powerful thing in almost any area of human activity, and certainly resisting peer pressure in the sciences raises fears — whether justified or not — when it comes time to procure future research grants. It will be interesting to see whether or not other scientists will come forward in the near future claiming that they also felt pressured to sign. However, regardless of the issues of spontaneity and peer pressure, The Times highlights the fact that the signatories represent but a fraction of British scientists.
With the Copenhagen conference in full swing, and the theory which is the ideological justification for the entire meeting now facing widespread public and scientific ridicule, the urge among supporters of the theory to rally their supporters is understandable, but needs to be kept in perspective.
What the public needs is to confront statements which begin “According to scientists…” with a healthy measure of skepticism. The debate surrounding global warming is so contentious because of the highly theoretical nature of the models which are utilized by proponents of manmade climate change. The “Climategate” revelations are the sort of thing which causes many within the scientific community to become alarmed precisely because the allegation is that the credibility of the scientists at the very heart of creating the global warming theory has been fundamentally compromised.
Scientific truth cannot be established by polls; what is needed is data and independent verification of the assertions made by the advocates of the theory. But with much of the original data destroyed, locked behind “confidentiality” agreements, or challenged because of the manner in which it was collected, manmade climate change is farther away from being seen as “settled science” today than it was six months ago, and the extreme actions being contemplated by the Copenhagen conference are less justifiable than ever before.
Rt. Rev. James Heiser has served as Pastor of Salem Lutheran Church in Malone, Texas, while maintaining his responsibilities as publisher of Repristination Press, which he established in 1993 to publish academic and popular theological books to serve the Lutheran Church. Heiser has also served since 2005 as the Dean of Missions for The Augustana Ministerium and in 2006 was called to serve as Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). An advocate of manned space exploration, Heiser serves on the Steering Committee of the Mars Society. His publications include two books; The Office of the Ministry in N. Hunnius’ Epitome Credendorum (1996) and A Shining City on a Higher Hill: Christianity and the Next New World (2006), as well as dozens of journal articles and book reviews.
Global warming alarmists are scrambling to save face after hackers stole hundreds of incriminating e-mails from a British university and published them on the Internet.
The messages were pirated from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and reveal correspondence between British and American researchers engaged in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda. UEA officials confirmed one of their servers was hacked, and several of the scientists involved admitted the authenticity of the messages, according to the New York Times. The article opined, “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.”
Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. “This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud.” The e-mails implicate scores of researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators: “Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?… Will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential “hockey stick” graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent. In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” wrote Jones. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Mann received another incriminating e-mail from Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a New Zealander now with the University of Colorado and Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” An incredulous Trenberth simply blamed “our [inadequate] observing system.” Yet he and his colleagues are now dodging the “Climategate” bullet, indignant that global warming skeptics are supposedly taking their comments out of context. One wonders if they might be referring to a message from Jones who wrote about a statistical “trick” he used to “hide” data. Or perhaps they mean Mann’s reference to climate change skeptics as “idiots.”
Now that AGW is revealed as a farce, will big-spending politicians in the U.S. Senate halt efforts to impose a cap-and-trade system to ostensibly combat greenhouse gases and global warming? Of course not. Cap and trade is about raising taxes and increasing government control over our entire economy. Our socialist politicians in Washington will never stop pushing this issue, even if global-warming alarmism is disproven to the point that Hell really does freeze over.
Will widespread and irrefutable knowledge of scientific fraud silence the socialist promoters of a new United Nations Climate Change protocol? Nonsense. In the name of saving the planet, the UN Copenhagen Treaty they intend to impose on the world would help to shackle it. Specifically, their “green” agenda would impose international controls, diminish the industrial might and living standards of developed nations, and transfer wealth from rich countries to poorer ones in an emerging world government. Internationalists and socialists will not back away from their long-sought-after global designs simply because the “science” supporting runaway global warming is shown to be flawed. No doubt they will continue to demand retributions for climate debt from the United States and the largely agreeable EU, despite Trenberth’s observed “lack of warming.”
The good thing is that even more than in the past, these false scientists and their alarmism will be countered with their own words. Even now reliable researchers are compiling the information in apublication that should shake our nation — and maybe even a few Democratic politicians.
One of the leaked climate emails was apparently a press release from “Earth Government” Newsletter dated 27 Mar 2003. The document calls for a ‘democratic’ world government that would amalgamate and reform the prevailing global institutions including the United Nations, IMF, World Bank WTO, NAFTA, FTAA and others “for the good of all.”
It further refers to an “Earth Court of Justice to deal with all aspects of the Governance and Management of the Earth.” The document also makes mention of the “Foundation for the new world order, Earth Government” and “The splitting of America into separate independent states living at peace for the good of all.” Is this a revelation of the true intentions of certain environmental advocates, or just one of many emails in the background of calls to “hide the decline” of global temperatures (despite intense claims of global warming).
It is eerily similar to newly named EU President Herman Von Rompuy’s calls for Copenhagen to establish “global management” of the planet and Queen Elizabeth’s recent declaration during her throne speech at the opening of Parliament that “My government will seek effective global and European collaboration through the G20 and the European Union to sustain economic recovery and to combat climate change, including at the Copenhagen summit next month.”
Damian’s revelation that Futerra has gone so far as to train even CBeebies researchers in “green” communication may offer a lifeline to embarrassed academics at the beleaguered “University” of East Anglia. The ever-helpful BBC might be able to channel them towards a less challenging audience than those brutal sceptics who are holding the Phil Jones University up to so much painful ridicule. Might there not be very promising alternative careers for Phil Jones and Michael Mann if a happy collaboration between CBeebies and, say, Blue Peter could be devised?
“And now children, here are Phil and Michael to show you how to make your own global warming statistics at home.”
“Hello, children, I’m Phil. Can anyone tell me what Michael is holding? Yes. It’s a hockey stick. Does anybody know what that is for? No, Timothy, it is not to beat the crap out of nasty sceptic Pat Michaels, though that is a very good thing to do. It is to save the world. No, Prunella, Mr Brown did not do that last month, he was only speaking metaphorically. Michael…”
“Right, children. Now, watch what Phil is doing. That thing with steam coming out of it is called a computer. What do you think Phil is putting into it? It’s called data. There we go… lots and lots of lovely codes and nice warm data… Oh, look! Phil is frowning. Something isn’t quite right… So, children, now Phil is feeding in his lucky number… and his doggie’s birthday… and his social security number. It’s getting warmer, that’s good. Now he’s adding in the number he first thought of and – wow! It’s getting really hot. Look at all that smoke coming from the computer – don’t try this at home. I’ll just print off that graph and let you see the pretty picture.”
“Hi, kids, now I’ve finished working with the computer, let’s see what Michael is holding. It’s a graph, showing how hot the world is getting because of motor cars and American Republicans and horrid people called Deniers – Oh, look, Michael is holding his graph upside down. No, he’s not being silly, he’s being responsible. Because, you see, although the words are upside down, the lines are pointing upwards, which is what matters. And when we send it to our colleagues in New Zealand, who are becoming almost as famous as we are, the words will be the right way up, because it’s an upside-down country…”
“Thanks, Phil. That was good. Now, kids, if you’ll watch very carefully, Phil will show you how to fill in a very useful piece of paper called a grant application form. You can send that to some very nice people in America – they’re like Father Christmas, but all the year round, and they give out lots of lovely money that people all over America pay them. Phil…”
“And what do we do now, children? Just like tidying away your toys at home before bedtime? We wipe the computer clean, in case burglars try to break into it and let people see what we’ve been doing. After all, it’s none of their business!”
The Record Events map depicts the official National Weather Service records recorded for the defined date(s) or time period, which includes record high and low temperatures, record high minimum temperatures, record low maximum temperatures, record daily rainfall and record daily snowfall. Source: Hamweather Climate Center and NOAA/NWS
Record Weather for Sat Oct 10, 2009 through Fri Oct 16, 2009:
Total Records: 6257
Rainfall: 859
Snowfall: 297
High Temperatures: 369
Low Temperatures: 785
Lowest Max Temperatures: 3473
Highest Min Temperatures: 474
Treasury Dept. Admits Mega-Billion Dollar Global Warming Tax
Documents obtained this week from the U.S. Treasury Department reveal the Obama administration’s plans for a massive global-warming tax through “cap and trade” legislation that has already passed the House. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) requested the Treasury documents (PDF) under the Freedom of Information Act and was given an edited version of five records that indicated the cost to American taxpayers would be from $100 – $200 billion per year.
This is just an estimate, since the Treasury had blacked out the end of the following sentence: “It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of….” Opponents of the plan maintain that the average household would end up saddled with an estimated one to two thousand dollars in added energy consumption costs annually, costs that are corroborated by the Treasury’s estimate since there were 105,480,101 households as of the last census.
If passed, cap-and-trade legislation would set up government rationing of industrial carbon dioxide emissions. Obama’s plan involves granting, selling, and/or auctioning carbon dioxide-emission permits to the industrial sector, which will translate to higher prices for household and business energy consumers.
“The cost of a cap-and-trade plan to businesses and consumers will be huge, which the Treasury Department internally acknowledges,” said CEI Senior Fellow Christopher Horner. “The documents represent what the administration expects ‘cap and trade’ to cost, and raise. It’s a candid perspective that must be told with as much openness to the American public as administration staff discuss with each other. Therefore, we call on the Administration to immediately release complete, un-redacted copies of these documents for all to see. No more hiding.”
Environmentalists disagree with CEI’s conclusions, claiming that Obama plans to use cap-and-trade revenue to cut taxes. Tony Kreindler, spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund, explained, “That math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers. It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.”
The Treasury Department goes even further. “The reporting on the Treasury analysis is flat out wrong,” said Alan B. Krueger, Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy. “The reporting and blogging on this issue ignores the fact that the revenue raised from emission permits would be returned to consumers under both administration and legislative proposals.”
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are not convinced. “The current administration claims to be the most transparent in American history, yet it’s been hiding a report showing its cap-and-trade energy plan would cost up to $200 billion every year,” argued Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). “American families can’t afford a new $1,761 yearly energy tax, and our economy surely cannot afford the 1-percent drop in productivity this big-government bill would cause. The best step we can take right now to lower energy costs, boost the economy, and clean our air would be to rely on a technology we created: nuclear power.”
Others warn this legislation would likely offshore more American jobs, since countries like China and India do not levy greenhouse-gas taxes. In a February interview with the New York Times, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said, “The concern about cap-and-trade in today’s economic climate is that a lot of money might flow to developing countries in a way that might not be completely politically sellable.”
Global warming may be taking another black eye as AccuWeather.com reports an unusually cold July, which is most pronounced in the Northeast of the United States.
While it has been unusually hot in the Southwest, AccuWeather reports that 1,044 daily record low temperatures have been broken thus far in the month of July, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NCDC).
NCDC has also recorded “low highs” for the month as well, and when that figure is added to the mix, the number of record-breakers increases to 2,925 slated to pass 3,000 before the end of the month.
The period of July 17-20 was the worst, according to AccuWeather’s gleaning of the NCDC records with more than 1,600 weather stations scattered across the country breaking records.
Furthermore in the survey, there are some dramatic ‘departure from average temperatures’ figures thus far in July. That compilation of departures includes “-10.0″ in Pennsylvania. Double-digit deficits over a month are rare, notes AccuWeather.
The majority of stations are reporting departures below normal thus far with only Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas having stations reporting above normal.
With temperatures usually peaking in the dog days of July, there are temps in the 50s in every state, and 40s in most, with some 30s.
There is also an significant lack of 85-degree days in the Northeast through July 20th.
Buffalo, Albany, Boston, Chicago, and Cincinnati have all logged 0 days in July above 85. Detroit, Pittsburgh, and New York have logged only 1 each.
As cap-and-trade advocates tie their knickers in knots over so-called “global warming,” Mother Nature refuses to cooperate. Earth’s temperatures continue a chill that began 11 years ago.
As global cooling accelerates, global-warmists kick, scream and push their pet theory – just like little kids who cover their ears and stomp their feet when older children tell them not to bother waiting up for Santa Claus on Christmas Eve.
Consider how the globe cooled last month:
• June in Manhattan averaged 67.5 degrees Fahrenheit, 3.7 degrees below normal – the coldest average since 1958. The National Weather Service stated July 1: “The last time that Central Park hit 85 in May . . . but not in June was back in 1903.”
• In Phoenix, June’s high temperatures were below 100 degrees for 15 days straight, the first such June since 1913. In California’s desert, Yucca Valley’s June average was 83.5, 8.5 degrees below normal. Downtown Los Angeles averaged 74.5 degrees, five below normal.
Statement before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009
Madam Speaker, before voting on the “cap-and-trade” legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproject.org.
full story: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul537.html
In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change.
