Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Environmental media, 'scientists', and government inseparable in global warming hoax-Gloucester Times, June 2010

7/1, UPDATE: Married to the mob, the Washington Post's 'environmental' "reporter" Juliet Eilperin is married to Center for American Progess 'Climate' Specialist Andrew Light whose work at CAP's Global Climate Network is
  • patronized by wealthy UN climate boss/lobbyist/steamy romance novelist,
Rajendra Pachauri.

"Scientists must promote their ideas to politicians and the public in order to create a world that is "ecologically sound, economically feasible and socially just," she (Pew fellow Lubchenco) argued." (italics mine, ed.)
"For five days, esteemed scientists and elite journalists gathered on Bonaire in the Netherlands Antilles, east of Aruba, to loll on the island's fine beaches, sip cocktails at the Tipsy Seagull and perhaps marvel at the flamingoes for which Bonaire is famous.
The official purpose of the October 2002 gathering of the
"Learn how to navigate the stormy waters of the media," read the description of one Bonaire workshop. "Packaging your message is a key to success — whether talking to the media,
  • submitting a paper to Science or Nature (magazine), writing a grant proposal, or writing an op-ed for your local paper."
But it wasn't all business.
The workshops were followed by "barside discussions" as the sun-soaked setting
  • blurred the line that usually separates reporters and those they cover. So, too, did it blur the line between trainers and trainees.
The scientists being trained on Bonaire had a ready pool of journalists on which to practice what they were learning about working the media. The list of reporters invited to Bonaire was a
  • who's who of science journalism: Cornelia Dean of the New York Times, Natasha Loder of the Economist, Charles Alexander of Time magazine and Tom Hayden of U.S. News and World Report, among others.
Dean told the Gloucester Daily Times her trip to Bonaire was paid for by Pew, the powerful nonprofit that uses its multi-billion-dollar endowment to steer public policy on the environment and other issues.
  • While the New York Times has strict standards against junkets, Dean said, an exception is made for "teaching," and that's what she was doing in Bonaire.
  • "My goal was to help scientists to speak more clearly to the public," she said.
The scientists mingling with the journalists on Bonaire included beneficiaries of Pew money, like Steve Palumbi, Elliot Norse and Jeremy Jackson.
Another notable scientist on Bonaire was Daniel Pauly, the author last year of "Aquacalypse Now: The End of Fish," and
Pauly is a longtime prophet of doom for commercial fishing.
In a 1998 article he co-authored for Science magazine, Pauly predicted that rapacious commercial fishermen would work their way down the marine food chain — eliminating predator fish such as tuna and swordfish, then setting their nets for the bait those fish feed on. In the end, nothing would be left on the menu but "jellyfish and plankton soup."
'Fished Out'

The Bonaire conclave is just one example of the symbiotic relationship that has developed between
  • environmental advocates and scientists and some of the
  • big-media journalists who cover them.
The journalists are wined and dined by the advocates
  • and hired to train the scientists to use the media to advance their message.
The journalists, in turn, call on those same scientists as sources when writing about the advocates and their agenda.
  • In June 2003, eight months after Bonaire, Tom Hayden warned of the cataclysmic consequences of overfishing in a cover story for U.S. News and World Report,
The story, "Fished Out," quoted 13 different concerned scientists and citizens coming to the same awful conclusion: Jellyfish might one day be fishermen's only catch.
Although Hayden was virtually unknown in commercial fishing circles,
  • his story had the potential to influence the American public's view of the fishing industry.
Hayden did not mention to his readers that, of the 14 sources he quoted for the article, 13 received their funding directly or indirectly from Pew, as Pew fellows or the recipients of Pew grants. The 14th was a restaurant chef.
  • Hayden's Pew-connected sources included Pauly, the godfather of the jellyfish scenario, and Jeremy Jackson, a Scripps Institution of Oceanography ecologist.
Both Pauly and Jackson were on Bonaire with Hayden, who did not return several messages for comment on this story.
  • In fact, Jackson was on the agenda to go snorkeling with Hayden. Hayden's U.S. News and World Report cover story quoted Jackson on jellyfish:
"Jellyfish have become a commercial fishery in many places," Jackson says, "because that's all that's left. That and the bacteria."
  • Hayden also quoted Jane Lubchenco, now head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the parent agency of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
'Frame their messages'
Lubchenco, a Pew fellow and mentor of many other Pew fellows, wasn't on Bonaire. But she appeared in a PBS-produced film shown at the event titled "Empty Oceans, Empty Nets," another cautionary tale of overfishing, funded in part by Pew.
  • Lubchenco for years has urged her fellow scientists to become activists in the debate over issues like global warming and overfishing and
In 1997, as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Lubchenco called on fellow scientists to
  • join her in a new "social contract."
Scientists must promote their ideas to politicians and the public in order to create a world that is "ecologically sound, economically feasible and socially just," she argued.
  • A year after the speech, Lubchenco founded the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program to advance her activist vision.
The program trains chosen scientists in "talking points" to use with the media and other nonscientific audiences, according to its website. Through "role playing and small group interactive exercises,"
  • the scientists learn how to develop "specific, appropriate messages to stakeholders."
Trainers hired to work with Aldo Leopold fellows have included
  • reporters for the New York Times, the Washington Post and National Public Radio, as well as leaders of environmental groups and
  • White House and
  • congressional staff members.
Lubchenco also helped organize two groups with a similar mission, SeaWeb and the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea — COMPASS.
  • Lead trainer for all three advocacy groups — Aldo Leopold, SeaWeb and COMPASS — is Nancy Baron, a zoologist and former science writer.
Baron has boasted to colleagues about her success in manipulating the media message — and the media.
  • In a 2005 e-mail — a copy of which has been obtained by the Times — she cited an article in The New York Times, and wrote:
  • "We worked with these scientists to help them frame their messages and talk about their study so it resonates with the wider public. Note their quotes in particular which are not just off the top of their heads ..."
In 2008, referring to a story on damage to the ocean ecosystem written by Andrew Revkin for the Science Times section of The New York Times, Baron wrote: "This Science Times piece came out of AAAS (American Academy of Arts and Sciences) and our infamous marine mixer."
  • The infamous mixer was a cocktail party hosted by COMPASS for members of the Academy and the press.
The networking that links activists and journalists was fully on display in the Washington Post story that broke the news of President-elect Obama's decision to nominate
  • Lubchenco as head of NOAA in December 2008.
The story was written by the Post's environmental writer, Juliet Eilperin, who has been both a panelist and participant in COMPASS events.
  • Eilperin cited "several sources" for the scoop and quoted one in praise of Lubchenco: Andrew Rosenberg.
The story did not mention that Rosenberg is an adviser to both Pew and COMPASS and has ties to Lubchenco that date to when she was a professor and he a grad student at Oregon State University. He lists Lubchenco as a reference on his resume.
  • Rosenberg is also a former high-ranking NOAA official who
  • now runs an environmental consulting company that has obtained
  • more than $12 million in NOAA contracts in the past decade.
Last fall, Lubchenco made him a White House consultant on ocean policy."
  • via Climate Depot. Pachauri photo WUWT

Above, UN climate boss Pachauri in Jan. 2010 promoting his steamy romance novel. Climategate emails 4/19/2002 and 4/22/2002 state that Saudi Arabia (oil interests) lobbied heavily for Pachauri. 4/19/2002: "intense behind-the- scenes lobbying by Saudi Arabia," for Pachauri to be named UN Climate Chief. Climategate emails. Oil gets global warming cash coming and going. Fossil fuel interests lobbied for Pachauri and he delivered. The NY Times and Washington Post won't report this. photo WUWT.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

UN Climate thug George Soros with Indonesian President in May 2010

Soros wants his CO2 trading empire to benefit by manhandling forests and indigenous people. ACTUAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS OBJECT: 5/27/10, Reuters: "Business groups say that the proposed (carbon) partnership should do more to involve the private sector and
while environmentalists want stronger strings attached to any cash."

Soros there promising free American taxpayer money to a foreign country. For the purpose of strangling us with his trillion dollar carbon trading scam.

"The Forestry Sector" refers to another climate mob scam, unregulated and unproven, paying indigenous people to cut down or not cut down their trees (the REDD program). But in any event, paying them.

May 18, 2010, REDD Monitor: " For example, in his research of forests in Costa Rica (pdf), Duke University professor Alexander Pfaff saw instances in which

farmers were paid not to cut down forests even though they would not have cut them down anyway.
Pfaff says, “If you weren’t going to clear the forest and I still pay you, [the project has] changed nothing.” To make it worthwhile for landowners to participate, the payment for an intact tract of land must be higher than what a landowner would make from cutting down the trees or replacing them with grazing fields or crops."...
  • "Indonesia’s ambitious carbon emissions reduction target of 26 percent by 2020 could be expanded to 41 percent with expected funding from the United Nations, an official said on Monday.
Dino Patti Djalal, a presidential adviser for international affairs, said President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono had reiterated the country’s commitment to cut carbon emissions during a meeting on Monday with billionaire investor and philanthropist
  • George Soros, acting in his new role as a UN special envoy.
Soros has been named to the High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, formed recently by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

“The president stressed Indonesia’s commitment to reducing emissions by 26 percent by 2020, and up to 41 percent if international support is forthcoming,” Dino said at the Presidential Office.

The target was first announced at the G-20 summit in the United States last year, making Indonesia one of the first developing countries to commit to a voluntary emissions cut.

The UN advisory group, which brings together presidents, prime ministers and experts, is working to mobilize the funding promised for climate change mitigation during a UN conference in Copenhagen in December.

The Copenhagen Accord focuses on developed countries’ commitments to put together a green fund — $30 billion from 2010 to 2012, and up to $100 billion a year by 2020 — for environmental projects in developing countries.

The funding mechanism is expected to be finalized at a climate change summit in Cancun, Mexico, in November this year.

“The president and Soros had a very constructive conversation on post-Copenhagen progress,” Dino said.

He added that Indonesia would seek most of its carbon reductions in the forestry sector.

Soros said he was in the country to explore ways to generate international support for Indonesia’s efforts.

“I think Indonesia can make a really big contribution to keeping global temperatures steady,” he said.

“I’m very optimistic that we will be able to make substantial headway in that direction. It was probably, I feel, the most fruitful visit I have ever paid to a country to discuss this subject,” he added.

Soros said that by protecting its vast rain forests, Indonesia would make a crucial contribution to the world.

“I think there is therefore a very strong case for providing international support both in the form of

loans, but more in the form of grants,” he said.

Soros said Indonesia’s initiative would encourage greater

political will to provide support, though he added developed countries were slow off the mark.

“I got involved, became active, exactly because I was dissatisfied with what has been achieved,” he said. “I think every country has to make a contribution.

“The contributions made by many other countries, including my own [the United States], is I think inadequate, and I’m working not only in Indonesia but in every country including my own to step up the effort.”"

photo AFP via Tom Nelson

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Rampant fraud in United Nations "green" global warming Kyoto agreements, damaging environment, UN gives 'bogus' credits-Reuters

UPDATE, 6/15, The UN will look into it, but nothing will happen, no one cares, and the abuses have gone on for years in the hundreds of millions if not billions in fraud and waste. The UN is accountable to no one as long as it gets hard-earned US taxpayer dollars to fund its lazy slobs and all their relatives. "UN considers review of alleged carbon offset abuses,"
  • ""The exact amount of the environmental damage cannot be determined but the data suggests that millions of credits have been issued which
  • do not present real emission reductions," said Chaim Nissim, head of environmental group Noe21."...
6/15, "Firms participating in a Kyoto Protocol carbon scheme are abusing it by artificially inflating their greenhouse gas emissions, thereby allowing rich nations' emissions to rise significantly, a watchdog said on Saturday.

Green Business

Under Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), worth $2.7 billion in 2009, companies can invest in carbon-cutting projects in emerging economies, and in return get carbon offsets that can be used against their own emissions.

Findings released by CDM Watch, an initiative of non-governmental organizations, showed the most lucrative projects in the CDM, chemical plants that destroy a potent gas called hydrofluorocarbon-23 (HFC-23),

  • may have inflated their emissions in order to destroy them and sell more offsets.

It also found that plants produced less HFC-23 during periods when they were unable to request CDM offsets, called Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs).

"Analysis of monitoring data from all registered HFC-23 destruction projects revealed that plants are intentionally operated in a manner to maximize the production of CERs," CDM Watch said in a statement.

  • "Because of the extra revenue ... far more HFC-23 is generated than would occur without the CDM."

Due to inaction by the CDM's executive, CDM Watch said it made an official submission calling for new CERs handed to HFC projects to be discounted by over 90 percent, and for projects up for renewal to be reviewed at a panel meeting from June 21-25 and by the executive when it meets in late July.

  • "It would ... remove the current financial incentive that causes plants to produce gas for the sole purpose of getting paid to destroy it," said CDM Watch director Eva Filzmoser.

"It's completely unacceptable for the UN to keep issuing an inflated number of bogus credits that create vast profits for carbon trading groups and chemical companies."

If approved, the revision could drastically alter the 2,236-project strong CDM, which to date has been ruled by the credits of 19 HFC projects, mainly in China and India.

Because HFC-23 traps nearly 12,000 times more heat than a molecule of carbon dioxide, and because it is cheap to destroy, HFC offsets account for more than half of the 420 million CERs issued to date by the U.N.'s climate change secretariat.

Industry participating in the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme, which forces firms to turn in carbon permits against every ton of carbon dioxide they emit, also surrendered over 100 million HFC credits in the past two years.

Slashing the flow of HFC offsets would starve an already scarce CER supply, expected to total under 1 billion by 2013.

If the U.S. launches an emissions scheme that accepts CERs, global demand could exceed 10 billion tons by 2020, an amount unlikely to be met even with the current flow of HFC CERs.


CDM Watch made the submission after the second HFC project registered, a South Korean plant owned by Britain's Ineos Group, requested another 7-year crediting period which would see it get 2.2 million CERs annually to 2016.

CERs currently trade around 13.00 euros ($15.65) each.

Ineos Group was not immediately available for comment.

Projects are only approved under the CDM if they can prove they are "additional," that they would not have gone ahead without the prospect of the revenues from selling CERs. Critics say CDM projects that are not truly additional contribute to global warming by allowing buyers of their CERs to pollute more.

  • "The exact amount of the environmental damage cannot be determined but the data suggests that millions of credits have been issued which do not present real emission reductions," said Chaim Nissim, head of environmental group Noe21.

CDM Watch cited two plants that cut HFC-23 generation when they were ineligible for crediting, and increased production once they could again claim CERs for its destruction. One even stopped HFC production when it was not allowed to request CERs, just to resume when it became eligible again, it added.

CDM Watch also revealed that many plants produced exactly the amount of HFC-23 they are allowed to claim credits for, even though chemical production was lower or varied annually."

Labels: ,

Thursday, June 10, 2010

National cap and trade actually passed today via EPA empowerment. Who will call for the 2007 Supreme Court 5-4 decision to be overturned?

Most people do not have time or inclination to research what's going on in the Washington, DC cesspool. For instance, that cap and trade (which is moving forward under different names) actually passed today 57-43. Obama doesn't need cap and trade legislation because he can simply say the EPA is in charge of everything as part of the executive branch. This is what Soros wants, so not to worry.
  • Today's vote anticipates that move and was to try and prevent that kind of power being handed to non-elected bureaucrats at the EPA. It failed as expected:
The bottom line of Thursday's Senate vote on Murkowski's bill according to one pundit:
  • "“I don’t want to hear a liberal bemoan executive supremacy ever again.
This is Congress abdicating its own authority because the Democrats
  • know they can’t get the
Hot Air via Tom Nelson
  • P.S. The left considers the courts to be their private domain. The Supreme Court's 2007 5-4 ruling that CO2 was a pollutant should of course be overturned and would be if it were brought. The correct information could not possibly have reached the judges at the time of this decision as it was
  • purposely kept out of scientific publications. NOT THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE, CO2 OR EVEN OIL. This has been documented numerous times. ed.


Sunday, June 06, 2010

Carbon trading profiteers making global warming worse, not better, another sub-prime like scam in the making

  • not reducing it....
  • fraudulent carbon dioxide emissions permits and allowances...are now
flooding into the poorly regulated and weakly supervised global carbon exchanges."
  • ...(This from another author who believes in global warming but that it's been taken over by commercial interests who not only won't help the planet, will damage it. The carbon market is unregulated, done with a click on a computer and already infested by organized crime. Who will stop it?). ed
June 6, "The global carbon market is the most recent and perhaps the most glamorous ‘poster-child’ of globalization ever.
  • Within a decade it has grown from relative obscurity to an estimated US$180-200 billion in value by the end of this year....
Further the market is projected to grow by one-third this year. This is all the more remarkable, as it follows a compounded annual rate of growth of 90 per cent for the period 2005 to 2009.
  • As previously discussed, the bulk of the global carbon market is centred on the segment dealing with trades in carbon dioxide emissions allowances and permits.
The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is the largest, accounting for about two-thirds of the volume.
  • The US ten-state regional cap-and-trade programme for power plants, which I have previously classed as ‘voluntary’ because there are no federally mandated emissions controls, is projected to reach a
  • value of US$2.2 billion
and an approximate volume of one billion metric tons of carbon dioxide this year. This clearly suggests that if the United States establishes its own mandatory cap-and-trade system similar to the EU’s, the global carbon market
The second and much smaller segment of the market deals with projects that generate carbon offsets (including forest carbon) under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the Joint Implementation (JI) has also grown spectacularly....

Clearly therefore, the future growth of the global carbon market is heavily dependent on 1) a replacement of the Kyoto Protocol 2) full economic recovery and

As the highly favoured poster-child of globalization, the global carbon market is portrayed as one of two fundamental solutions for coping with the (alleged, ed.) global climate problem....

The carbon price...

Of course these price benefits will only be secured if markets are competitive and efficient. Indeed, if the market were rigged in any way, whether through

  • fraud, corruption, insider trading, monopoly, information withholding or other such illegal actions,
  • these benefits would not be realized.

Greed, however, more often than not motivates players in major markets, leading to market failure. To prevent this from occurring requires strict regimes of oversight and regulation so as to ensure neither illegalities nor excessively risky behaviour occurs. Unfortunately, as I shall reveal in later columns, the spectacular rise of the global carbon market has been accompanied by the equally spectacular

It will be left for readers to judge whether these have reached a stage where

  • market failure is compounding the threat of global warming and climate change
  • and not reducing it.

Such an outcome would not be unique to the global carbon market. The previous poster-child of globalization has been the financial and credit market. Tellingly that too was riddled with market abuses, which recently led to the near-collapse of the global financial system and the worst economic recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

In the coming weeks I shall argue that just as the world has come to realize at the heart of the recent financial collapse was the toxic private household mortgage – backed securities of the US, there is a

flooding into the poorly regulated and weakly supervised global carbon exchanges."

The carbon trading scam has been up and running for years-having no interest in the environment.
  • They knew they'd get away with it because big media would cover for them. They would never go against Soros. ed.

Labels: ,