Thursday, July 29, 2010

The climate mob is cornered now. Bullies aren't used to being cornered.

7/27, "Western Cimate Initiative offers cap and trade," AP, Barnard
  • A desperate move to create a 'pretend' market to fleece the middle class under the guise of 'helping the environment.'
  • The people are getting too wise for this but beware. The climate mob is in a corner now.
  • From the Western Climate Initiative's greatest hits:
8/23/07, "All (Climate) Pact and Ready to go," Grist : "The Western Climate Initiative aims to
partner with other trading systems like the European Union's and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the U.S. Northeast. "...
  • Even in 2007, being uninformed about the so-called "European Union" or imagining doing business with them shows a disconnect with reality. Corrupt from top to bottom, it exists just to leach money out of the pitiful middle class and into the pockets of global thugs. Greenies are finding out the environment is the last thing on these guys' minds.


Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Cap and Trade cronies aren't about to let their political cash cow die

  • Palm trees once grew in the Arctic. Ice Ages have come and gone. "The notion that a mere 150 years of the Industrial Revolution could warm the planet is fantastic." John Batchelor.
7/28, "Cap-and-Trade cronyism," Human Events, B. Sussman
  • "Don't believe the headlines. Cap-and-trade is not dead. It's too important to fail. Why? Because well-heeled Democrat cronies are expecting an opportunity to score big bucks via the trading of carbon dioxide.
Cap-and-trade works like this: the federal government will examine every industry sector in America and determine how much carbon dioxide individual businesses and companies are allowed to emit annually—that’s the cap. If an entity surpasses its defined cap it must purchase carbon credits on a government-approved exchange. If that same business were to see its carbon emissions remain below the cap, it would gain credits. These credits could be saved or sold like a commodity on the exchange.
  • The official exchange will likely be an existing corporation known as the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).
With each transaction on the exchange, the government will receive a fee, brokers a commission,
  • and savvy investors a score. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2015, the federal government alone will be hauling in $104 billion a year from cap-and-trade. And who are these investors awaiting their carbon-based lucre? ...Foremost are Al Gore and his partners at the Generation Investment Management (GIM) hedge fund. These chums include former Goldman Sachs bigwigs like Philip Murphy, previously chair of the Democratic Finance Committee, and Hank Paulson, former Treasury secretary).
GIM specializes in “green investments,” is worth over $1 billion, and is said to have a stake in CCX and Europe’s official carbon-trading exchange.
Another player lined up to cash in on carbon is the Silicon Valley’s most prestigious venture capital firm, Kleiner-Perkins (KP). And guess who’s a partner at KP? Al Gore. And guess who has an investment in CCX? KP.
  • Now an additional element of cronyism has surfaced: former Clinton and Obama advisor—and former CEO of the government-sponsored mortgage giant Fannie Mae—Franklin Raines has positioned
  • Fannie and a few of his friends with the opportunity to practically print money straight off the backs of the American homeowner.
Raines is one of several “co-inventors” for U.S. patent numbers 6904336 and 7133750, which give Fannie the exclusive rights for identifying and measuring energy savings in homes that can then be
  • packaged and sold as carbon credits on the exchange.
The patents speak of “replacing older appliances with more energy-efficient appliances; upgrading domestic hot-water heating systems; upgrading heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems; modifying lighting … installing insulation in attics and exterior walls [and] installing more efficient windows.”
  • The patents say regulators will be able to measure ongoing energy use (likely through the new Smart Meters which measure and record energy usage on a minute by minute basis), and by “onsite” inspectors conducting “visual inspection.”
These onsite inspectors are what I refer to in Climategate as the “green goon squad”
  • Buried in the House version of cap-and-trade are
  • federally mandated energy-efficient building regulations, which supersede all local and state codes.
These new codes will be enforced by thousands of new government workers, and funded by
  • new energy taxes and an annual $25 million from the Department of Energy “to provide necessary enforcement of a national energy efficiency building code.”
The green goon squad will be trained by the secretary of Energy to “enhance compliance … concerning the national energy efficiency building code.”
  • Once your home is up to code, Section 204 of the House bill states you will receive a certificate of compliance—without the certificate your home will likely be blacklisted from being sold or refinanced.
  • The EPA and Department of Energy will get a combined $70 million annually to enforce the program.
While Fannie gets the carbon credits, the holders of the patent will get the royalties—usually 1% per transaction. Multiply that times the 100 million homes in the U.S. (who knows how many carbon credits will be attached to each house or what the credits will be worth?) and you have a handful of people who can go on a lifelong tropical vacation.

The patents’ co-inventors are:
  • • Franklin Raines.
  • • Scott Lesmes, former Fannie deputy general council.
  • • Robert Sahadi, former Fannie vice president who now runs a green investment firm.
  • • Kenneth Berlin, an Obama fundraiser and an environmental attorney who has worked for Fannie.
  • • Michelle Desiderio, developer of an associated Fannie scheme called the Energy Efficient Mortgage. Desiderio now directs the National Green Building Certification program, which will likely train the green goon squad.
  • Elizabeth Arner Cavey, wife of climate change lobbyist Brian Cavey.
  • • Jane Bartels, widow of Carlton Bartels—who some refer to as inventor of carbon credit trading.
The co-inventors don’t believe in global warming; they believe in money. And they want cap-and-trade."
via Tom Nelson

Labels: ,

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Some people amazingly take Paul Krugman seriously

""Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman delivers the good news that 2010 is "the year in which all hope of action to limit climate change died." Needless to say, he thinks this is bad news, but that's not why we're highlighting his column in yesterday's New York Times. Instead, it is for this passage:
"You've probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers--allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of "Climategate," and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media."...

Now, it would be one thing for Krugman to argue--wrongly, in our opinion--that the "supposedly damning e-mail messages of 'Climategate' " were not actually damning. But no one has denied that they are genuine.
  • Krugman's description of them--and every other accusation "leveled against climate researchers"--as "a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action"
is flatly false.

Nor is this the first time such a statement has appeared under Krugman's byline in the pages of the Times. You may dimly recall this passage of his Aug. 17, 2009, column:

"In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false."

Again, a categorical statement: not "some of these stories are false" (which is probably true) or "these stories paint a misleading picture; although the British health-care system has its shortcomings, on the whole it is vastly superior to America's" (which, as a statement of opinion, is at least defensible). If even a single scare story about Britain's National Health Service is true, Krugman's assertion is false....

  • We're grateful for the material, but we're not so self-absorbed as to think that Krugman makes himself ridiculous merely in order to make our job easy. Why then?"

via Tom Nelson


Thursday, July 22, 2010

Hate speech by ClimateGate 'scientist,' declares Phil Jones "changed the way the world thinks" about global warming

If so, Phil Jones convinced the world*** the American middle class is guilty of climate crime and must
  • pay billions in reparations to the carbon mob.
Santer wants to 'beat the crap' out of Patrick Michaels.
  • From ClimateGate East Anglia emails, 10/9/2009
10/9/2009: "From: Ben Santer
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700

Dear Phil,

...I'm really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted
I'll help you to deal with Michaels and the CEI in any way that I can.
The only reason these guys are going after you is because
  • your work is of crucial importance -
  • it changed the way the world thinks about human
effects on climate.
  • Your work mattered in the 1980s, and it matters now.
With best wishes,

Ben wrote:
> Ben,
> Thanks for backing me up with whoever Rick is"...
This alone negates the reason for existence of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, the US 2007 5-4 Supreme Court decision on CO2 endangerment, the Chicago Climate Exchange, the trillion dollar 'climate' industry, including shakedown groups like the NRDC, and the above scientist's angry email. ed.


Thursday, July 15, 2010

'Climate' bill being written by corporations who know best behind closed doors-Politico

"Negotiations taking place at Duke Energy Corp.’s downtown Washington offices....
"NO Senate staff in the room"...

Thursday...a second day of closed-door talks on capping greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, according to three sources close to the negotiations. ...

You’re dealing with a set of utilities who really want to do something and a group of environmentalists who know this is the best chance for a long time,” said Eileen Claussen, president of the
  • Pew Center on Global Climate Change." ...(representing vested interests)
(continuing, Politico): “People are really working through the stuff and so far so good. But there are more issues to deal with.”

Claussen and the other sources declined comment on the specifics of the negotiations taking place at Duke Energy Corp.’s downtown Washington offices. But they confirmed that industry and environmental officials are wrestling with an industry demand for regulatory relief from several existing Clean Air Act provisions as a point of entry for agreeing to go first in a climate change program. They also are debating exemptions from EPA climate regulations and allocation of
Industry officials at the table represent Duke, Exelon Corp., PG&E, PNM Resources and Dominion Resources. The Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew and the Bipartisan Policy Center also are in the room. The talks lasted nine hours Wednesday and three more hours Thursday. More conversations are expected in the coming days, but there is no plan for another in-person meeting....
  • No one calls Dems on the fact that environmental and electric utility lobbyists – which are both special interest groups – are negotiating major climate legislation, with potentially huge economic consequences for this nation, on behalf of the majority leader?” Dillon said in an e-mail.
Senate staff weren’t even in the room? This is bullshit.”"
  • Why not? No one is afraid of the wimpy republicans. ed. via Tom Nelson

Labels: ,

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

NY Times and Washington Post face extinction like everyone else--THE SCIENCE says...

  • Hey, Seth, NY Times... "Scientists say"...
7/13, "Life on earth wiped out every 27 million years," UK Daily Mail, N. Firth
  • "Life on Earth is wiped out every 27 million years – and we have about 16 million years left until the next extinction, according to scientists.

Research into so-called ‘extinction events’ for our planet over the past 500 million years - twice as long as any previous studies - has proved that

  • they crop up with metronomic regularity.

Scientists from the University of Kansas and the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC are 99 per cent confident that there are extinctions every 27 million years.

  • In the 1980s scientists believed that Earth’s regular extinctions could be the result of a distant dark twin of the Sun, called Nemesis.

The theory was that Nemesis crashed through the Oort cloud every 27 million years and sent a shower of comets in our direction....

  • because its orbit would have changed over time as it interacted with other stars.

Fossil data, which motivated the idea of Nemesis, now militate against it,’ say the researchers.’

The last extinction event, 11 million years ago,

This means there is around 16million years until the next event takes place, although the graph shows that it occasionally the event takes place up to 10 million years early.

  • Asteroids crashing into the Earth are commonly believed to be one of the main reasons behind
  • mass extinctions like that suffered by the dinosaurs - the Cretaceous-Tertiary (KT) extinction.

The extinction wiped out more than half of all species on the planet clearing the way for mammals to become the dominant species on Earth.

  • The extinction was caused by a massive asteroid slamming into Earth at Chicxulub in Mexico.

The asteroid, which was around 15 kilometres wide, is

via Drudge Report


Friday, July 09, 2010

Global warming dreamed up by Enron and others well before anyone heard of 'climate scientists' and billions in 'reparations' owed by the evil US

Media cheer leading of welfare recipient climate scientists is another reminder that without media whitewashing, the multi-trillion dollar global warming movement would not exist. It's an efficient distraction, a joke, and probably a crime if it were closely examined. The Kyoto Treaty was passed in 1997, before the so-called climate 'hockey stick' graph was first published in 1998, quietly nurtured behind the guarded walls of the UN, hedge fund thugs and other 'climate' profiteers and
  • well before the 2001 and 2007 UN Climate Reports. Trillions of dollars have stood behind this fantasy. It is irrelevant to them whether climate science proved anything.
All they know, and urged by Obama, is US citizens are guilty of climate crimes and must pay billions in reparations. The city of London would cease to exist without carbon trading, and can't afford light to shine on the climate crime family or even the largely superfluous welfare recipients at the ClimateGate University of East Anglia. Only because the people found out about it this cancer at the 11th hour has it cooled. Last October, a central ClimateGate scientist wrote that they can't prove what they're claiming. It's there in black and white. But the media refuses to report it, and the official "reviews" ignored it. This is an obvious crime. There is only one logical reason the NY Times has not had this on the front page every day. Money. The climate industry is now the biggest in the world, and is all based on nothing, a myth.
  • Kevin Trenberth on October 12, 2009, said in a ClimateGate email that the CRU had no proof for the claims they were making. It's in black and white. And these guys are still making money, getting taxpayer grants, off this joke. US elected officials have not pointed to this and similar emails (except Mr. Inhofe) and no one listens to him:

Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," adding that "we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years.

The official "reviews" by bodies with financial interests at stake simply ignore this and other official statements. The larger part is that the legacy media sells this as a major vindication. This is no different than, for example, if Dick Cheney had been accused of crimes while at Halliburton, and Halliburton conducted a 'review' declaring Cheney 'innocent.' Would they cheer that?

- John Palmisano (December 12, 1997) from Kyoto, Japan. Quoted in Bradley, Capitalism at Work, p. 307 ****

"What did the CRU crew do?

The Climatic Research Unit is one part of the picture, an important one, but not at the heart of climate theory. They're not physicists, and they don't do the physics upon which competing explanations of how the climate works stand or fall, once measured against observation. So in that sense, 'Climategate' isn't a 'Climategate' - it isn't a Scopes Trial of the global warming theory.

But CRU does two important things that shape our understanding of the present and the past. CRU is one of a small number of bodies that calculates global temperature readings (of where we are today), and is probably the pre-eminent body that performs historical temperature reconstructions, quite literally writing or re-writing history. And its importance is magnified since the leading academics are also lead authors of the UN's IPCC reports - the vast volumes policy makers like to cite as their scientific justification, but rarely read.

In the absence of a strong physics story, this temperature work became hotly contested. The biggest bone of contention is whether modern, post-1850 warming is anomalous. If it is, then the likelihood that we were in strange and uncharted territory is much greater. If it isn't, then consequently, the need for "urgent political action" - involving sweeping changes to industrial policy and social policy - became weaker.

The father of modern climatology, HH Lamb, founded CRU in 1972, and the building the academics work in takes his name. When Lamb contributed to the first IPCC report in 1990 the historical temperature record looked like this.

By 2001, it looked like this:

What Climategate is largely about, then, is whether the academics were justified in making that Medieval Warm Period disappear.

Unfortunately, none of the three 'independent' reviews have grappled with this. The absence of anomalous warming doesn't, as some skeptics say, make the problem go away. But it takes the issue back onto the blackboard, back into realms of the potential threats. It certainly removes much of the impetus for a sweeping and urgent political program of mitigation.

Yet in the academics' own words, we learn that the recent burst of warming, while real, is far from unusual.

One of the leading CRU academics, Keith Briffa, wrote that:

“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter...

"For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.”

In an interview in February, CRU director Phil Jones agrees that recent warming isn't statistically significant, and is matched by previous periods in the instrumental record - such as 1860 to 1880.

The sensible end of the climate debate hinges on how much of a lasting consequence an increase in CO2 has on the climate system. Some prominent scientists who as recently as 2001 were lead authors for the IPCC don't dispute there's an effect, but maintain that once it's worked itself out, the effect is small.

Proponents of large positive CO2 feedbacks have pointed to various 'fingerprints' which are absent, or refuse to manifest themselves. Greenhouse gas warming was supposed to create a telltale warming of the troposphere, but instrumental readings show no such evidence. More recently, they have posited that CO2 must have caused warming, but this is still trapped in the oceans. This "missing heat" has yet to be found, and in the Climategate archive we find US scientist Kevin Trenberth expressing frustration: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," adding that "we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"

For Trenberth, if we had better instruments, we'd find the heat. For skeptics, the heat might not be there.

By the mid-2000s the issue had become so politicised the academics were acting like a "priesthood", in the words of environmental writer Fred Pearce, no friend of the skeptics. As Jones wrote in an email: “Many of us in the paleo field get requests from skeptics (mainly a guy called Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending anything, partly because we don't have some of the series he wants, also partly as we've got the data through contacts like you, but mostly because he'll distort and misuse them."

In a sense the CRU team are carrying the can for the physicists' failure to do the science." via Climate Depot
  • The issue is not the climate scientists. It is that the media will not report the truth. It simply ignores facts, hides facts, distorts facts, etc. It is entirely the fault of the media. ed.
P.S. The NY Times features Siemens advertising on their Green page (7/9). Ceasing to patronize the NY Times advertisers is the only recourse a citizen has. ed.