Baseball Media Watch

Baseball Writers' Hall of Fame vote is one big conflict of interest

2011-12-31T01:08:00.001-07:00

Dec. 30, 2011, "Baseball Writers’ vote for 2012 Hall of Fame class is a conflict of interest," Evan Weiner, NewJerseyNewsroom.com

Hoffman said 300 saves should be 'benchmark for a closer as is 3,000 hits for a hitter'-SF Chronicle, Jan. 2011

2011-09-24T00:20:00.002-06:00

1/13/11, "Closer Hoffman no first-ballot Hall of Fame lock," SF Chronicle, John Shea

"Trevor's no Mo. Then again, who is?

The Yankees' Mariano Rivera is the greatest closer in baseball history, with apologies to Dennis Eckersley, Rollie Fingers, Rich Gossage and a few others, and should break Trevor Hoffman's career saves record of 601 this year or next. Rivera's 42 shy.

More than that, he's in his own class in terms of achievements on the national stage, considering his postseasons (0.76 ERA, 0.766 WHIP, 42 saves, 94 appearances) and even All-Star Games (an 0.00 ERA in eight appearances).

Hoffman, who retired this week, wasn't near Rivera's level with his limited postseason experience. He blew a save opportunity in his only World Series appearance (1998 with the Padres) and also failed on two save tries in the final three days of the 2007 season, costing San Diego the playoffs. On a lesser note,

Hoffman blew a save chance in the 2006 All-Star Game, allowing Rivera to close it out.

Rivera also has superior regular-season numbers. That's not to say Hoffman's not Hall of Fame worthy, but first ballot is no lock. No career reliever (we're not counting Eckersley, who won 148 games as a starter) reached Cooperstown on the first ballot.

Fingers made it in his second year of eligibility, Hoyt Wilhelm in his seventh, Gossage his ninth and Bruce Sutter his 13th.

At issue is how the closer's role is valued. It's a relatively new position, the save a relatively new stat, which probably is overly hyped. Not even Hoffman has a true grasp. He suggested on Wednesday that 300 saves should be a benchmark for a closer as is 3,000 hits for a hitter and 300 wins for a starter.

That's overly generous. Doug Jones, one of 21 relievers to save 300, is no all-timer. Four hundred saves (reached by just five) is more acceptable. Even then, maybe not. John Franco, despite 424 saves, is off the Hall ballot after receiving less than 5 percent of the votes.

Lee Smith was Hoffman before Hoffman, once the all-time saves leader with 478. But Smith received 45.3 percent in the latest vote.

It was his ninth year on the ballot."

Nearly $3 million US taxpayer dollars wasted on Ocala, Florida green jobs bust

2010-11-24T19:43:00.010-07:00

The CO2 mandates Washington Post employees mistakenly believe can make a difference in Florida can be found strangling 10 Northeastern states and the state of California. Florida doesn't make much of anything, has little to regulate, and has already tapped out its power companies for 'renewable' dollars via rate payers. This is one reason Florida is a state filled with poor people such as the subject of this article. If the Washington Post wants to help, they can get on their bicycle, pedal to Florida, give the bike to the job seeker there, and suggest he pedal to California. (As for 'sustainable landscape design' cited as a 'green jobs' possibility, they've known about that for years in Florida. You'd have to live in Central or South Florida to understand how different it is from the Beltway).

11/22/10, "Retrained for green jobs, but still waiting on work," Washington Post, M. Fletcher

Ocala, Fla."After losing his way in the old economy, Laurance Anton tried to assure his place in the new one by signing up for

green jobs training earlier this year at his local community college.

Anton has been out of work since 2008, when his job as a surveyor vanished with Florida's once-sizzling housing market. After a futile search, at age 56 he reluctantly returned to school to learn the kind of job skills

the Obama administration is wagering will soon fuel an employment boom: solar installation, sustainable landscape design, recycling and green demolition.

Anton said the classes, funded with a $2.9 million federal grant to Ocala's workforce development organization, have taught him a lot. He's learned how to apply Ohm's law, how to solder tiny components on circuit boards and how to disassemble rather than demolish a building.

The only problem is that his new skills have not resulted in a single job offer.

Officials who run Ocala's green jobs training program say the same is true for three-quarters of their first 100 graduates.

"I think I have put in 200 applications," said Anton, who exhausted his unemployment benefits months ago and now relies on food stamps and his dwindling savings to survive. "I'm long past the point where I need some regular income."

With nearly 15 million Americans out of work and the unemployment rate hovering above 9 percent for 18 consecutive months, policymakers desperate to stoke job creation

have bet heavily on green energy.

The Obama administration channeled more than $90 billion from the $814 billion economic stimulus bill into clean energy technology,

confident that the investment would grow into the economy's next big thing.

The infusion of money is going to projects such as weatherizing public buildings and constructing advanced battery plants in the industrial Midwest, financing solar electric plants in the Mojave desert and training green energy workers.

But the huge federal investment has run headlong into the stubborn reality that the market for renewable energy products - and workers - remains in its infancy. The administration says that its stimulus investment has saved or created 225,000 jobs in the green energy industry,

a pittance in an economy that has shed 7.5 million jobs since the recession took hold in December 2007.

The industry's growth has been undercut by the simple economic fact that fossil fuels remain cheaper than renewables. Both Obama administration officials and

green energy executives say that the business needs not just government incentives, but also rules and regulations that

force people and business to turn to renewable energy.

Without government mandates dictating how much renewable energy utilities must use to generate electricity, or placing a price on the polluting carbon emitted by fossil fuels, they say, "...(see opening comment, ed.)

(continuing): "green energy cannot begin to reach its job creation potential.

"We keep getting these stops and starts in the industry. There is no way it can work like this," said Bill Gallagher, president of Solar-Fit, a Florida energy company

whose fortunes have fluctuated with government incentives in its 35 years in business.

Like many people who run renewable energy companies, Gallagher said he sees no need to expand his 25-employee firm because the business is simply not there."

(The US is not Denmark. This should be obvious. Denmark's 'climate industry' is overrun with organized crime. Putting some weatherstripping on buildings won't provide any tax money to speak of. ed.).

via Michelle Malkin

Arnold to sell organized crime infested cap & trade as hip and sexy. Real environmentalists know 'cap and trade' can't possibly help the planet.

2010-11-16T22:58:00.013-07:00

Dear Arnold, Apparently you see middle America as helpless in the face of self-beatified Hollywood bullies, the Soros machine, and UN thugs. You seem to think you can get us to drink Kool-Aid laced with arsenic.

We are not interested in organized crime disguised as green, sexy or hip.

11/16, BBC, "By contrast the conference host - (outgoing California Governor) Mr Schwarzenegger - sees lack of international agreement as an opportunity.

Under his leadership California has begun work on huge solar and wind farms.

As his time in office comes to a close, he is launching a new group called R20, to encourage

local and regional authorities to invest in the low-carbon economy and to encourage public involvement.

Mr Schwarzenegger said: "We should not just rely on policy... what is important is that we

make the general public buy in on this whole idea of going green.

"You've got to make it hip, you've got to make it sexy to be part of this movement.

His enthusiasm is unlikely to reach Washington."...

Powerhouse environmental legal boutiques ravaging US taxpayer funds outside public limelight. Polar bears merely props in a mafia-like scandal

2010-10-22T19:31:00.016-06:00

The doors of the bank (hard earned US tax dollars) are open and no guards are on duty. Voters are starting to notice things like this. The so-called Center for Biological Diversity filed 565 lawsuits from 2000-2009 and offers secrecy to its donors, ie rich donors need not be disclosed.

10/9/09, "Environmental lawsuits rake in billions for lawyers," by Jake Putnam

"During harsh economic times, rancher Karen Budd-Falen reached the breaking point on a day last fall. Falen had read about a huge court settlement the

Federal Government paid out to a non-profit environmental group and after talking to the ranchers in the Western Legacy Alliance, it set her off.

Falen channeled the frustration into a quest; she wanted to know how much money the Federal Government had paid out in lawsuit legal fees over the past decade and what she found is astounding.

In just six years non-profit environmental groups filed more than 15-hundred lawsuits and in turn the

Federal Government paid out more than $4.7 billion in taxpayer dollars in settlements and legal fees in cases against the U.S. government.

Between 2000 and 2009, Idaho's Western Watersheds Project out of Hailey filed at least 91 lawsuits in federal district court with 31 appeals in federal appellate court according to Falen, who not only is a rancher but a former Department of Interior law clerk. She and husband Frank represent cattlemen in range issues throughout the west.

Falen often wondered how tiny non-profit organizations like Western Watersheds could afford an attorney like the famed Laird Lucas of Boise who is known as one of the best natural resource attorneys in the country.

"We tried to track the fees paid to environmental groups in certain federal courts. These guys are charging between $350 and $450 an hour in legal fees." Falen says the Federal government is picking up the tab and adds: "In Federal District Court in Boise, over the last ten years, WWP received a total of $999,190 in tax dollars for 'reimbursement' for attorney fees and costs."

"We've had a lot of litigation with WWP," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Haws of Boise. "We've had a lot of cases with them and they have prevailed on cases and been awarded Equal Access to Justice Attorney fees. I don't have a total, but that amount wouldn't surprise me."

"It's atrocious, as a private operator I can't gather that kind of money to fight anything like that," said rancher Ted Higley of Malta, Idaho. "If they're going to fight personal causes it should be with their personal money,

not government money."

Falen's research shows that of the cases filed by Western Watersheds in Idaho's Federal Court, 19 went before Judge Lynn Winmill; eight resulted in decisions on merit with WWP prevailing with total attorney fees awarded to the tune of $746,184; six of the cases were settled by the feds paying of $118,000.

WWP lost six cases but still managed a payday in two cases, but the payment amount is confidential. Falen's findings show a pattern:

there's a payday in court, win or lose or draw.

"I'm not going to point fingers at WWP but there are organizations out there that are just sitting there scrutinizing, watching every decision an agency makes waiting for that 'low hanging fruit' to jump on - just to get fees," said U.S. Attorney Mark Haws.

"Nonprofit, tax exempt groups are making billions of dollars in funding," said Falen. She says

the majority of this legal fee money is not going into programs to protect people, jobs, wildlife, or endangered species but

to fund more lawsuits from non-profit environmental groups.

Farmers and ranchers that struggle to make a living off the land are forced to spend money out of their pocket to defend themselves; that's what happened to ranchers Tim Lowry and Paul Nettleton of Owyhee County.

The ranchers successfully defended a decade-long fight for water rights on their land against the BLM.

The Idaho Supreme Court ruled on their side in a precedent setting case but the

U.S. Supreme Court denied them attorney fees under EAJA from the government because the decision came in state court.

That left the ranchers with a $1.5 million legal bill from a case in which

the Federal Government dragged them into court.

"There's a lot of a things wrong with this picture," said Falen. "The federal government is spending billions in taxpayer dollars

without any accounting of where the money is going or to whom it is going.

There is no oversight in spending this money, especially the money that's coming out of agency budgets that

should be funding programs to protect public lands, national forests, ranchers, recreationists, wildlife and other land uses," said Falen.

Falen's research shows that between 2000 and 2009, Forest Guardians (NKA as WildEarth Guardians) filed 180 lawsuits in federal district courts with at least 61 appeals in the federal appellate courts; during the same time frame the

Center for Biological Diversity filed at least 409 lawsuits in the federal district courts with at least

165 appeals in the federal appellate courts.

In addition she found over the past 15 years that the Wilderness Society filed 149 federal court lawsuits, the Idaho Conservation League filed 69 lawsuits, the Oregon Natural Desert Association filed 58 lawsuits, the Southern Utah Wilderness Association filed 88 lawsuits and the National Wildlife Federation filed an astonishing 427 federal court lawsuits.

Falen says she found cases in which the Federal Government paid legal fees for both sides of a case -

just so they could turn around and sue the federal government

who in turn will force ranchers off the range.

In 2001 the Western Watersheds Project sued Verl Jones of Challis

claiming that the rancher violated the Endangered Species Act by

diverting water from a creek on his ranch to irrigate an alfalfa field, killing endangered bull trout. Federal District Court Judge Winmill ordered Jones to stop diverting water, which cut into the family's hay production and

nearly bankrupted the ranch.

But the harshest blow came when Jones was ordered to pay $36,000.00 to Watershed's attorney Laird Lucas. In the end the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal overturned Winmill's decision and the order to pay Lucas, but the

family was left with a $50,000 bill from their attorney.

Falen also documented numerous cases in which the federal government agreed to pay attorney fees,

but hid the exact amount from public view.

"Somewhere this has to stop and the government has to be held accountable for the money it's spending," adds Falen.

"If you just look at the raw number and say 'why in the world is the United States paying a million dollars bankrolling them to sue us,' well that's what

congress set up through EAJA. That's the law,
we're bound by it," said Mark Haws.

"My firm did this because it makes me so mad," said Falen. She agrees with Haws, these

groups have mastered the art of filing suits and

collecting taxpayer money from the Federal Government by "prevailing" in litigation.

They can prevail either by winning the case on the merits

by the Justice Department agreeing that the group "prevailed" in a settlement.

The main funding source is called the "Judgment Fund." It's a Congressional line-item appropriation that's

used for Endangered Species Act cases,

Clean Water Act cases, and with other statutes that directly allow plaintiffs like Western Watersheds to

recover attorney fees just by filing, even if there's no hope in winning.

"I wish we could get a payday just for showing up," said rancher Ted Higley. Falen uncovered six years of paydays for 'non-profit' lawyers, she found:

In fiscal year 2003, the federal government made 10,595 individual payments from the Judgment Fund to federal court plaintiffs for a price tag of $1,081,328,420.00.

In 2004, the federal government made 8,161 payments from the Judgment Fund for $800,450,029.00.

In 2005, 7,794 payments were made from the Judgment Fund for a total of $1,074,131,007.00.

In 2006, the federal government made 8,736 payments from the Judgment Fund for $697,968,132.00.

In just the first half of fiscal year 2007, the federal government made 6,595 payments
from the Judgment Fund for $1,062,387,142.00.
In total, $4,716,264,730.00 (that is billion with a "b") in total payments were paid in taxpayer dollars from the Judgment Fund from 2003 through July 2007 for
attorney fees and costs in cases against the federal government.

Falen says another major source of payments to "winning" litigants against the federal government is the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Equal Access funds are taken from the "losing" federal agencies' budget. So if the BLM loses a case in Federal District Court attorney fees are paid from the "losing" BLM office's budget.
"That's money that could be used for range improvement, habitat enhancement, timber projects, and archeology and cultural clearances and other agency programs," adds Falen.

Between 2003 to 2005, Region 1 of the Forest Service (Montana, North Dakota, northern Idaho) paid $383,094 in Equal Access to Judgment fees.

Between 2003 to 2005, Region 2 of the Forest Service (Wyoming, South Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma) paid $97,750 in EAJA fees.

Between 2003 to 2005, Region 3 of the Forest Service (Arizona, New Mexico) paid $261,289.85 in EAJA fees.

Between 2003 to 2005, Region 4 of the Forest Service (southern Idaho, Utah, Nevada) paid $297,705 in EAJA fees.

Between 2003 to 2005, Region 5 (California) of the Forest Service paid $357, 023 in EAJA fees.

Between 2003 to 2005, Region 6 (Washington State, Oregon) of the Forest Service paid $282,302 in EAJA fees.

Out of the 44 total cases in which the Forest Service paid EAJA fees between 2003 and 2005,
35 payments went to ‘nonprofit' environmental group plaintiffs."

SatelliteGate: 'US agency faces courtroom climate showdown.' By 'US Agency' that could mean the Postal Service as well as NOAA...

2010-10-09T03:46:00.009-06:00

US taxpayer supported public employees at NOAA operate under the same structure as those of the post office. Which is at best, no accountability.

10/6/10, Climate Realists guest contributor John O'Sullivan: "The controversy over ‘Satellitegate’ hots up as NOAA faces a court appearance for refusing to release evidence that would show whether one or more US satellites exagerrated global warming temperatures.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a federal agency focused on reporting the condition of the oceans and the atmosphere. When the story first broke NOAA bizarrely announced it would withdraw satellite ‘images’ from its archives but

failed to state whether reams of cooked data had also been withdrawn.

An official US Government statement last July confirmed that the NOAA-16 earth orbiting satellite used to measure surface temperatures suffered failure due to a “degraded” sensor system. But skeptics now fear that because government climate scientists won’t answer any more questions or reveal the discredited data archives they may be guilty of fraudulently cooking the books to show super boiling temperatures.

The story broke after an anonymous member of the public contacted a skeptic blog when he stumbled across thousands of alarming readings on a government website. The website showed thousands of surface temperatures of over 400 degrees fahrenheit. Dubbed Satellitegate the shocking revelations proved that all such bogus data had been fed automatically into data banks that the US Government then sold all over the world.

As proprietary temperature data products the junk numbers were used by domestic and international weather and climate researchers. Fears are growing that the junk data may have contaminated scores of climate models worldwide and

artificially increased average global warming records by several degrees.

In the three months since the story hit the news NOAA still hasn’t come clean as to the true extent of the data contamination. Now it may be necessary for lawyers to file an official Freedom of Information request (FOIA) to compel the government, under federal legislation, to stop the cover up and reveal the truth.

US Government Has History of Breaking Law over Satellite Failures

This won’t the first time NOAA has cynically broken the law to hide embarrasing satellite problems. In 2008 desmogblog.com became embroiled in a similar FOIA confrontation- see ‘NOAA Stonewalls on DCSOVR Documents.’ It is believed that the DCSOVR satellite costing over $100 million may be cannabalised to destroy incriminating evidence that NOAA and NASA were conspiring to prevent the launch of that satellite because it would prove the numbers from other such sources were fake.

As desmogblog.com reports, “DSCOVR is designed to view the planet from the unique vantage point of one million miles distant, and according to leading researchers would immediately settle any remaining debate on the origins or seriousness of global warming.”

Degraded Climate Data Knowingly Sold for Over Five Years

Among the questions NOAA still hasn’t answered are: (1.) how long did NOAA knowingly sell to its network of international customers (mostly government weather and climate researchers) ‘degraded’ data and, (2.) why was no action taken until the story caused a public outcry five years after prominent climate researchers first made the faults known?

Sadly, some commentators on this issue omit to consider that it is common practice in corruption cases for conspirators to shroud their malevolence in the cloak of incompetence. To be fair to the commentator in question he has since publicly conceded, “But, I don’t know the full story.”

How the Law Addresses Corruption

Too often, those with little or no legal experience fail to address whether the alleged perpetrators have the means, motive and opportunity to engage in such conspiratorial acts. Willful ignorance of the facts and/or the law are recurrent themes in government corruption cases on which I’ve worked in both the UK and New York.

Courts must look for the mens rea (guilty mind) component of the wrongful act in conjunction with the actus reus (the rotten deed itself) otherwise, quite rightly, they will never convict.

Lawyers defending the indefensible will often resort to that hoary old chestnut of applying the “merely negligent” gambit to get government workers off serious charges. I have heard endlessly over the years from defense attorneys that we should “never presume malice where simple incompetence will do.” To the raw, untrained eye it often works.

Indeed, there is no prerequisite to doubt such an affirmative defense when there is the absence of any pattern of “error” because it is that pattern of repeated errors that leads to the guilty. What becomes apparent in good fraud cases is that the evidence always displays a pattern- a predictable sequence-

of “errors” that go way beyond mere chance.

The Question that NOAA Still Won’t Answer

What makes the Satellitegate controversy so intriguing are three simple questions:

1.Why do the thousands of high temperature “errors” favor the alarmist (thus government) case?

2.Why were such “errors” only acknowledged by the US government when the story became big news?

3.Why won’t NOAA answer my follow on questions and release all the facts?

Invariably, apologists for science fraud often refer to systemic “errors” as nothing more serious than simple laboratory “selection bias” - and it sure is! Those involved only see what suits them.

However, as we have seen in correspondingly substantial frauds (e.g. multi-billion dollar Madoff scandal and sub-prime mortgages) such “error” bias profits the individual or the organisation that crunched the numbers.

When that link between conscious act and subsequent gain becomes clear then it constitutes criminal fraud. Often when such cases are proved you’ll hear those same sanctimonious words uttered by apologists, “lessons will be learned” and they sure are - particularly lessons as to how best to mitigate being caught in the future!

How Self-preservation instinct leads to Conspiracy to Commit Fraud

As I have seen in courtrooms, many middle ranking officers, those loyal lieutenants, often rally behind the misdeeds of their superiors because they are clearly motivated by misplaced self-preservation in a process of ‘CYA.’ You “cover your ass” and concomitantly, by such a survival strategy you also cover the behinds of colleagues by wagon circling as a group. You know full well that your undoubted strength in numbers increases your own personal chances of avoiding censure/prosecution.

So how do anti-corruption specialists prove malfeasance/fraud under the civil burden of “the preponderance of the evidence?” Well, ultimately we need to demonstrate a good probability that X , Y or Z are unlikely to be merely incompetent time after time when their repeated errors favor only one outcome as opposed to a random one.

When it becomes statistically improbable that such “errors” could be down to chance alone, that’s when a jury convicts.

What those without legal training also often fail to grasp are two key concepts that courts must address that may be fatal for those implicated parties:

(i)Omission-conscious failure to positively remedy a known error is malfeasance and may thus constitute conspiracy to commit fraud;

(ii)Loss or destruction of evidence by any party subject to an FOIA constitutes evidence abuse which is dealt with by the spoliation doctrine (i.e. the offending party is sanctioned under law because the law states that a party shall be punished when it ought to anticipate legal proceedings-thus securing conviction by default judgment).[1.]

The worst evidence of hyper-inflated global warming data that I found was on a web page entitled, ‘Michigan State University Remote Sensing & GIS Research and Outreach Services.’ When I contacted NOAA for further information I was denied by their lawyers. Is this necessary if we are talking about a non-problem over trivial errors of data no one uses? Does that smell of negligence or more of fraud?

Taxpayers have a right to know what evidence has now become conveniently “lost” or destroyed.

NOAA and MSU have effectively blocked further access to all associated data preventing my associates and me from analyzing it to identify if there is any case to answer. We merely want NOAA to address the following:

1.Since removing ‘images’ from their archives has NOAA or its Sea Watch partners taken steps to also remove infected ‘data’ from their archives?

2.When did NOAA/Sea Watch Partners first know of this problem?

3.Has NOAA and/or Sea Watch partners ascertained the scope and extent of this data error and what action (i) has been (ii) will be taken to avoid any further recurrence?

4.Has NOAA/Sea Watch partners identified whether satellite data temperature anomalies impact other data sets and findings including global climate models?

5.Why has NOAA sinisterly removed all entries for the NOAA-16 subsystem log about the satellite’s health and performance from 2005 onwards when such entries were cleared displayed online up to the date of my first ‘Satellitegate’ article?

6.Were there errors also made in the NOAA-16 subsystem log that is a totally unconnected process to that of the degraded sensor.

7.Will NOAA preserve/provide my investigators and me with the details of all the aforementioned data no longer displayed online, plus all associated data that may be relevant to investigations into the ‘Satellitegate’ controversy?

8.Does NOAA continue to feed automated ‘degraded’ satellite data into its proprietary products that are bought by weather and climate researchers around the world?

9.Why has NOAA not given any official notifications to (i) it’s paying customers and (ii) the public via its website/publications of the NOAA-16 faults despite Drs. Roy Spencer and John Curry making it known since 2005 that data was no longer reliable?

What Are the Public Left to Think Now?
As any competent government corruption attorney will tell you, repeated errors constitute malfeasance when a continuous and unrelenting omission to address a known sequence of data ‘degradations’ can be judged to be nothing short of a conscious and willful act.

Moreover, when there is also the intentional failure to divulge the evidence that would prove conscious intent not to correct a fault in your favor then that is also proof of fraud. Thus, a group of those who knew of the errors and collectively and consciously failed to act are as guilty of conspiracy to defraud as those who perpetrated the original wrong.

Bankers have been jailed for less, why aren’t climate scientists?

[1.] Koesel, MM; Turnbull, TL; Gourash, DF; ’Spoliation of evidence: sanctions and remedies for destruction of evidence,’(2006), American Bar Association. "

via Climate Depot

Power brokers switching from Global Warming to Global Cooling, which still will be your fault and therefore you must pay

2010-09-28T00:32:00.008-06:00

9/26/10, "Global Cooling and the New World Order," UK Telegraph, J. Delingpole

"Bilderberg. Whether you believe it’s part of a sinister conspiracy which will lead inexorably to one world government or whether you think it’s just an innocent high-level talking shop, there’s one thing that can’t be denied: it knows which way the wind is blowing....

At its June meeting in Sitges, Spain (unreported and held in camera, as is Bilderberg’s way), some of the world’s most powerful CEOs rubbed shoulders with notable academics and leading politicians. They included:

the chairman of Fiat, the Irish Attorney General Paul Gallagher, the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates, Dick Perle, the Queen of the Netherlands, the editor of the Economist….

Definitely not Z-list, in other words.

Which is what makes one particular item on the group’s discussion agenda so tremendously significant....

The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 – 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations.

Yep, that’s right. Global Cooling.

Which means one of two things.

Either it was a printing error.

Or the global elite is perfectly well aware that global cooling represents a far more serious and imminent threat to the world than global warming,
but is so far unwilling to admit it except behind closed doors.

...Why this is a bombshell waiting to explode.

Almost every government in the Western world from the USA to Britain to all the other EU states to Australia and New Zealand is currently committed to a policy of “decarbonisation.” This in turn is justified to

(increasingly sceptical) electorates on the grounds that man-made CO2 is a prime driver of dangerous global warming and must therefore be reduced drastically, at no matter what social, economic and environmental cost. ...

The wheels are starting to come off the AGW bandwagon.

Ordinary people, resisting two decades of concerted brainwashing, are starting to notice.

All this, of course, spells big trouble for the global power elite. As well as leading to food shortages (as, for example, it becomes harder to grow wheat in northerly latitudes; adding, of course, to such already-present disasters as biofuels and the rejection of GM),

global cooling is going to find electorates increasingly angry that they have been sold a pup.

Our fuel bills have risen inexorably; our countryside, our views and our property values have been ravaged by hideous wind farms; our holidays have been made more expensive; our cost of living has been driven up by green taxes; our freedoms have been curtailed in any number of pettily irritating ways from what kind of light bulbs we are permitted to use to how we dispose of our rubbish.

And to what end?

If man-made global warming was really happening and really a problem we might possibly have carried on putting up with all these constraints on our liberty and assaults on our income. But if it turns out to have been a myth……

Well then, all bets are off.

The next few years are going to be very interesting. Watch the global power elite squirming to reposition itself as it slowly distances itself from Anthropogenic Global Warming (”Who? Us? No. We never thought of it as more than a quaint theory…”),

and tries to find new ways of justifying green taxation and control.

(Ocean acidification; biodiversity; et al). You’ll notice sly shifts in policy spin. In Britain, for example, Chris “Chicken Little” Huhne’s suicidal

“dash for wind” will be re-invented as a vital step towards “energy security.”

There will be less talk of “combatting climate change” and more talk of “mitigation”. You’ll hear enviro-Nazis like Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren avoid reference to “global warming” like the plague, preferring the more reliably

vague phrase “global climate disruption.”

And you know what the worst thing is? If we allow them to, they’re going to get away with it.

Our duty as free citizens over the next few years is to make sure that they don’t.

Al Gore, George Soros, Bill Gates, Carol Browner, John Holdren, Barack Obama, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Tim Yeo, Michael Mann, Ted Turner, Robert Redford, Phil Jones, Chris Huhne, John Howard (yes really, he was supposed to be a conservative, but he was the man who kicked off Australia’s ETS), Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Yvo de Boer, Rajendra Pachauri….(AND MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, ed.)

The list of the guilty goes on and on. Each in his own way – and whether through ignorance, naivety idealism or cynicism, it really doesn’t matter for the result has been the same – has done his bit to push

the greatest con-trick in the history of science, forcing on global consumers the biggest bill in the history taxation, using “global warming” as an excuse to extend the reach of government further than it has ever gone before.

It is time we put a stop to this.

In the US, the Tea Party movement is showing us the way. We need to punish these dodgy politicians at the ballot box. We need to ensure that those scientists guilty of malfeasance are, at the very least thrown out of the jobs which

we taxpayers have been funding these last decades.

We need to ensure that corporatist profiteers are no longer able to benefit from the distortion and corruption of the markets

which result from green regulation.

We need a “Global Warming” Nuremberg."

The same people who bring us the postal service tell us man made global warming exists even if data can't be checked, keep quiet and pay

2010-09-21T02:11:00.021-06:00

Claims that 'science says' 'it's the hottest ever,' and the like come from the same people who run the post office, ie the federal government. These data, especially the "land surface temperatures" are used to make 'global warming' policy, requiring billions in reparations be paid by Americans ASAP and continuing on a fixed date annually, not subject to negotiation.

The CO2 endangerment scheme has been in business for years well before arrival of celebrity climate scientists. With trillions more in the wings, it was thought state funded and approved 'land surface temperature' declarations would put a ribbon on the package. Now, everybody wants to know about these 'land surface temperature data.'
Yes, of course, we require public testing and verification of methods used in obtaining and assessing this 'global temperature,' if it is even relevant. In the world where people actually get fired for doing bad jobs and making big mistakes. Our finite time, effort, families and way of life are the targets, so, yes, we must know.

Mr. Peilke notes all kinds of people are starting to ask questions about land surface temperature data, up to the

'highest level of government.'

He writes that climate scientists at a recent Exeter, UK meeting note open admissions of lack of confidence in what have been put forth as land surface temperatures. Untested data should not be used for anything, especially not to demonize, rob and enslave Americans and others. Mr. Pielke deals only with the scientific process:

9/20, from Roger Pielke, Sr.

"There are very important admissions in these presentations.

First, outside of the USA, there is inadequate (or no) publicly available information on station histories,

yet these data are still used to create a “homogenized” global average surface temperature trend

which reaches up

to the “highest level of government”. Even in the USA,

there are undocumented issues.

While the organizers of the Exeter meeting are seeking to retain its leadership role in national and international assessments of the

observed magnitude of global warming,

it is clear that serious problems exist in using this data for this purpose. We will post information on several new papers when ready to introduce readers of this weblog to quantification of additional systematic biases in the use of this data for long-term surface land temperature trend assessments.

There is a need, however, to accept that the primary metric for assessing global warming and cooling should be upper ocean heat content, since from 2004 onward the spatial coverage is clearly adequate for this purpose (e.g. see).

While there, of course, is a need for regional land surface temperature measurements including anomalies and long-term trends, for obtaining a global average climate system heat content change the oceans are clearly the more appropriate source of this information."...

(Noted at Exeter meeting that "'highest levels of government' "are now becoming engaged in the "'nature of surface temperature data'").

Continuing from Roger Pielke, Sr. report on Exeter meeting:

"“Automation is the only realistic approach to deal with large datasets”

“More work is required to assess and quantify uncertainties in bias adjustments”

“Critiques of surface temperature data and processing methods are increasingly coming from non traditional scientific sources (non peer reviewed) and the issue raised may be too numerous and too frequent for a small group of traditional scientists to address”

“There is a growing interest in the nature of surface temperature data (reaching up to the highest levels of government)”"

from "Candid Admissions on Shortcomings in the Land Surface Temperature data, [GHCN] and [USHCN] at the September Exeter (UK) Meeting" by Roger Pielke, Sr. , 9/20/10

via Climate Depot

P.S. By the 'highest level of government' I trust we all know that means Soros. ed.

Bribes are how climate guys 'always do business,' UN global warming tax dollars diverted-report

2010-09-18T01:00:00.019-06:00

Indonesian climate 'negotiator' at Copenhagen suspect in corruption, says he 'just found $10,000 laying on his table," was told, we always do business this way....Reuters

9/17, "Corruption jeopardizes lucrative climate-change deals," Reuters, Jakarta Globe, by S. Creagh

Jakarta. "The billions of dollars that Indonesia stands to earn every year in climate-change deals could be at risk if it fails to stamp out corruption in its forestry sector, antigraft authorities warn.

Norway is preparing to pay the first $30 million of the $1 billion it agreed to give Indonesia as part of

a UN scheme in which rich nations will pay developing countries not to clear woodlands."...
(TRANSLATION: US and other taxpayers will be robbed blind by corrupt politicians. ed.)

(continuing): "Agus Purnomo, the head of the National Council on Climate Change, has estimated national revenue from emissions cuts could

reach $15 billion a year by 2030.

But considerable obstacles stand in the way. Indonesia’s lucrative palm oil plantations and mining sector say the moratorium on converting forests will hinder expansion and profits, while the

forestry sector has long had a reputation for mismanagement and graft.

An Ernst & Young audit found that in just four years in the mid-1990s, the reforestation fund lost $5.25 billion through mismanagement and fraud.

Antigraft officials are concerned that the
vast sums on offer under the
UN scheme could lead to further trouble.

“The forestry sector is a source of unlimited corruption,” said Chandra M Hamzah, a deputy chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

Wandojo Siswanto, a senior forestry official who helped negotiate the Norwegian deal and

represented Indonesia at the Copenhagen climate talks last year,

is a suspect in a corruption case, adding to concerns.

The KPK has spent two years probing allegations that forestry officials, legislators and businessmen at private contractor Masaro Radiokom

conspired to ensure the firm won a lucrative radio project.

The KPK estimated it cost the state Rp 70 billion

($7.75 million).

The KPK alleges Wandojo, who was in charge of the procurement project, received $10,000 in bribes from Anggoro Widjojo, a director of Masaro, to ensure the project was included in the Forestry Ministry budget.

It says Wandojo awarded the contract to Masaro rather than going through a tender process.
A travel ban was imposed on him last year after Copenhagen.

Wandojo maintains his innocence, saying he found the $10,000 on his table, and called Anggoro to ask what the money was for.

“I wasn’t brave enough to make a report to the KPK at that time,” he said, adding that he held on to the money for
four months before handing it to the authorities.

Wandojo has said his staff pushed to award the contract without holding a tender.

“I was advised by my committee that it was conducted every year this way,” he said.

“I was a victim of the situation.”

As part of the same investigation, the KPK last year raided the office of the ministry’s secretary general, Boen Purnama, where they

found $20,000 in cash, allegedly also from Anggoro.

Purnama would not comment and has so far not been named a suspect.

Anggoro has fled the country since being named a suspect.

The KPK said there was no evidence to suggest forestry officials would try to steal the Norwegian funding, but added Norwegian government officials had asked the KPK to play an oversight role to ensure the money was used properly.

The Norwegian International Climate and Forest Initiative, part of the Environment Ministry, said the
$1 billion deal was designed in such as way as to reduce the risk of corruption.

“It is an unfortunate fact that there are significant governance challenges, including issues of fiduciary management, in most tropical forest countries,” a statement said. “Clearly, dealing with these challenges is a priority.”

Adnan Topan Husodo, a deputy coordinator of Indonesia Corruption Watch, said

a graft suspect should not have been part of the team that negotiated the deal with Norway.

“The credibility of the team involved in the agreement is at stake,” he said. “This is huge money we’re talking about.”

Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, who oversees implementation of the deal, said the money would be kept separate from the government budget. "

George Soros in Indonesia in his capacity as a UN 'high level climate' negotiator, speaks with Indonesian President S. Bambamg Yudhoyono, May 13, 2010, Indonesia Press. (What a surprise to find Soros in the middle of this). ed.

via Tom Nelson

Bank organized 'quality' carbon offsets throw Indian farmers off their land

2010-09-13T23:00:00.010-06:00

'Eco-conscious' carbon offset purchasers (such as MLB teams who partner with Bonneville Environmental) rarely know the consequences of deals they fall for.

4/20/10, "Carbon offsets: Green project offends Indian farmers who lose land to windmills," CS Monitor, by B. Arnoldy

"The footprint of one windmill took less than an acre from a corner of Malche's small farm. But the loss means he no longer earns enough farming and now must spend part of the year in another state working in sugar-cane fields. He used to own three sets of clothes, he now makes do with two.

The Dhule project is an example of the dark side of a new industry that harvests profits from green energy and carbon offsets through projects in developing countries.

The eco-conscious buyers of carbon offsets rarely see the consequences of the projects.

The environmental payoff has been meager in the Dhule project, which produces significantly less renewable power from the windmills than expected by investors and regulators. In part that's because of

theft of windmill parts,

says one company that bought into the project, Essel Mining. The overall project, developed by Suzlon Energy Ltd.,

has spawned legal battles,

a government investigation into deals involving tribal lands, and a cloud of acrimony and accusations.

All of this was news to Rabobank, a Dutch consortium that bought 175,000 tons of carbon offsets in 2008 to help the company become carbon neutral, says Bouwe Taverne, head of

sustainable development for Rabobank in the Netherlands."...

9/8/10, Big league sports easily bought with eco-guilt.

And fans are a captive audience! How can you do better than getting someone to drive to and pay to get in to a stadium,

then with the aura of the sport and elite athletes you sell fans on the myth of CO2 endangerment and carbon offsets. Dressed up as caring about the environment, small children, helpless animals, requiring pious self loathing and abandonment of a lifestyle for which

evil Americans have stupidly worked, sacrificed, and died. ed.

via Climate Depot

RGGI cap & trade extracts $622 million from economy of 10 northeast states in mandatory program-Goldman Sachs, hedge funds run the show

2010-09-10T19:31:00.025-06:00

Northeast states RGGI cap and trade model eyed in west and midwestern US to make cap and trade "law of the land without an act of congress."

7/28/10,"The secrets 10 states and Wall Street don't want you to know," by Mark Lagerkvist, NJ Watchdog

"Secrecy and greed are polluting the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the nation’s first

mandatory cap-and-trade system.

Under the RGGI scheme, the smell of profiteering is powerful. New Jersey and nine other Northeast states have sold

$662 million in carbon dioxide permits since 2008.

The bidders at RGGI auctions include Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan Chase and other Wall Street heavyweights. They hope to make

big money by speculating on the price of permits, called allowances.

Electric power plants are required to obtain an allowance for each ton of CO-2 they emit.

But exactly who is buying what at these auctions? How much of the carbon market have they cornered?

What effect will the wheeling and dealing have on the electricity bills paid by consumers?

That’s none of our business, according to the bureaucrats in charge.

They denied New Jersey Watchdog’s Open Public Records Act requests for auction details,

contending the bidders’ “expectation of privacy” and

“trade secrets”

outweigh the public right to know.

RGGI executive director Jonathan Schrag claims RGGI is not a “public body” subject to state open records laws – even though it’s

a non-profit cooperative created and governed by the states of New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware and Maryland.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection contends it

“does not have documents responsive to (the) request in its possession.”

Reached by telephone while vacationing, Schrag expressed surprise at NJDEP’s statement. He said RGGI provides details of auction particulars to all 10 states.

State officials were ready with more hot air: “Even if the documents requested were in the possession of NJDEP…requested items would also be subject to confidentiality as trade secrets,” the agency argued in its written response.

“Balancing the interests of the ten signatory states…and the potential harm to the performance of the auctions against the private right to access and disclosure of such documents, the private right to access would be outweighed by the public interest in confidentiality of any records maintained by RGGI Inc.,” concluded NJDEP.

When Schrag returned from vacation, he declined New Jersey Watchdog’s request for an interview. According to RGGI records,

all ten states have agreed not to release so-called ”market sensitive information” –

even weeks, months or years after the auctions are over.

RGGI’s secrecy sharply contrasts the transparent approach of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in similar auctions. For the past 18 years, the EPA has been selling allowances for acid rain, also known as sulfur dioxide or SO-2.

After each annual auction, the EPA posts the particulars on its Internet site. Going back to 1994, the agency has disclosed all buyers, their bids and the number of SO-2 permits each purchased. Starting with 2003, those reports have been expanded to include information on unsuccessful bidders and their bids.

The EPA’s auction experience directly contradicts NJDEP’s claim that disclosure of the so-called “trade secrets” could somehow cause “harm to the performance of the auctions.” In fact,

the EPA credits its transparency as a key to its acid rain program’s success.

RGGI pretends its scheme provides “the maximum level of public disclosure.” For each quarterly auction, it releases aggregate totals and statistics in a report by an $185,000-a-year consultant who invariably concludes “the auction was administered in a fair and transparent manner” with “no material concerns regarding the auction process.”

But there is no disclosure of the auction winners and how many governmental CO-2 permits they purchased.

Instead, RGGI publishes lists of potential bidders who submitted “intent to bid” applications. The lists offer a glimpse of whose trade secrets RGGI is keeping confidential.

The most conspicuous are the financial power brokers who generate money, not electricity. The most recent list includes

Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Merrill Lynch Commodities, Barclays Bank and Louis Dreyfus Energy Services.

Previous auctions have included JP Morgan Ventures Energy and
Goldman Sachs, through its J Arons & Co. subsidiary.

At RGGI auctions, the utilities that need the CO-2 allowances must compete against private interests that can profit by driving prices up. The scheme affects the 209 electric generating plants with capacities of 25 megawatts or more.

“The electric power sector will be vulnerable to competition from hedge funds and other financial institutions and entities that may drive up the price of RGGI allowances,” a PSEG Public Services Corp. official complained to regulators in a 2007 letter.

“The result will be higher energy prices.”

With 14 power plants in RGGI states – including 11 in New Jersey – PSEG has estimated it needs to purchase 16 million permits a year to cover its carbon emissions.

Electric customers in the Northeast have yet to feel much of RGGI’s impact. During the recession, carbon dioxide emissions fell along with the demand for electricity. As a result, CO-2 allowances are abundant and relatively cheap. Prices for current permits at RGGI auctions have dropped from $3.51 per CO-2 ton in March 2009 to $1.88 in July.

That is likely to change with the economy – and particularly when RGGI lowers the cap by reducing the number of permits available. As demand and prices rise, speculators are likely to flock to carbon auctions in increasing numbers.

The financial industry is preparing a marketplace to handle billions and trillions of dollars of deals – a hot new category of investments to make everyone forget about sub-prime mortgages.

Derivative investments vehicles based on carbon dioxide emissions and RGGI permits are already available through two secondary markets –

the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange and the Green Exchange.

Those markets are backed by giants in the financial world. The Green Exchange (GreenEx) is owned by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse and other equity partners. The Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFC) was recently purchased by IntercontinentalExchange Inc. (ICE), which operates the world’s largest energy trading platform.

Though Congress failed to pass legislation for a nationwide system, RGGI ensures that cap-and-trade remains alive in the U.S.

The scheme has friends in high places, both on Wall Street and within the Obama Administration.

EPA Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson was first vice-chair of RGGI in 2008 while head of NJDEP.

RGGI is the prototype for two other mandatory regional systems scheduled to start in 2012.

The Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord will bring cap-and-trade to Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Kansas. The Western Climate Initiative adds California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Mexico, Utah and Montana – plus British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. Manitoba is a member of both cooperatives.

Together, the three regional systems will encompass 23 states with roughly half of population in the U.S. – plus four Canadian provinces with more than three-quarters of that nation’s populace.

The bottom line: A cap-and-trade system that favors secrecy over public disclosure – and Wall Street over consumers –

now has the inside track to become the de facto law of the land,

even without an act of Congress."

"The secrets 10 states and Wall Street don't want you to know," by Mark Lagerkvist, NJ Watchdog, 7/28/10, photo above from NJ Watchdog

5/26/08, Carbon offset abuse, UK Guardian

Profits from carbon trading to be taxed in India beginning in 2012

2010-09-02T23:50:00.006-06:00

9/2, "Carbon Credits to be Taxed in New Regime," Hindu Business Line by K.R. Srivals

"Sale proceeds of carbon credits will not escape tax when the new Direct Taxes Code comes into effect from April 1, 2012.

This is because the DTC Bill 2010 has explicitly stated that money received or receivable from transfer of carbon credits

will be treated as business income and taxed accordingly.

Such a provision if enacted will remove the current uncertainty surrounding the taxation of carbon credits, say tax experts.

Ambiguous

In the existing income tax law, there is no explicit provision that brings transfer of carbon credits under the tax net. In the absence of an explicit provision, there were disagreements between companies and the tax department on the taxability of carbon credits.

It was often contended that cash credits were in the nature of capital receipts and therefore could not be subjected to income tax. There were also sections that considered carbon credits as revenue receipts and hence felt that it should be subjected to tax.

The availability of tax incentives (profit linked deductions) for certain industries also complicated the issue of taxability of carbon credits.

However, the DTC Bill has now proposed to move away from profit linked deductions in respect of most segments except in the case of SEZ developers and SEZ units.

“The current income tax law has no provision on carbon credits. It is a grey area. However, the DTC Bill has sought to clarify the position and clearly mentions that

carbon credit sale will be categorised as business income.

So under the proposed regime, carbon credits will be treated as revenue receipts and will also attract tax,” Mr Sameer Kanabar, Tax Director, Ernst & Young, told Business line.

Moving backward

Some industry observers, however, contend that bringing carbon credits into tax net may be a retrograde step as it will discourage corporates from working towards reduction in carbon emissions and preventing global warming.

China and India account for about 75 per cent of the carbon credits issued,

according to the United Nations Framework for Climate Change.

Many Indian corporates had in the recent years earned tidy profits from carbon credit trade,

but had not provided for any tax in the books of accounts

in the absence of specific provision in the income tax law."

via Tom Nelson

Ability of 3rd world countries to get billions of UN global warming funds (ie broke US taxpayer funds) hinges on proving CO2 caused their problems

2010-08-30T01:31:00.012-06:00

Which is not possible, but the money is transferred anyway.

8/25/10, "Consider this discussion from the New Scientist (emphasis added):

[NCAR's Kevin] Trenberth agrees. "It comes to the question: given that there is a global warming component to an event, is there any way in which you can sue somebody for it? Who do you sue?" He points out, though, that it will always be difficult to rule out natural variation in climate. "It's going to be messy."

It already is. In 2005, victims of hurricane Katrina filed a lawsuit against a group of oil companies, claiming that they had created the environmental conditions in the Gulf of Mexico that strengthened Katrina. The case was dismissed in 2007, after it was ruled that the victims had no standing to sue because the harm could not be traced to individual defendants.
That decision was reversed in 2009.

But in June this year the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit again dismissed the case, this time because it did not have enough judges to form a quorum. In the process, the judges that were present ruled once more that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.

There is another reason for finding out how much climate change is to blame for various events.

"Hundreds of billions of dollars are potentially available [in a UN fund] to help developing countries adapt to climate change," says [Oxford' Myles] Allen.
Who gets what share of the funds depends on being able to say which regions have suffered most as a result of climate change. For now, at least, that remains an open question.

Read that last paragraph again. The ability of developing countries to access UN funds for adaptation depends upon their ability to attribute specific events to human-caused climate change from greenhouse gas emissions.

Because such attribution is not possible,

this makes the entire policy basis of the fund flawed.

Just imagine the absurd notion of well-meaning UN officials coming to Africa explaining that they have the resources to help, say, malaria victims who have the disease as a result of human-caused climate change, but not any of the other victims of the disease."...

from Roger Pielke Jr. blog, "The Attribution Trap"

via Climate Depot

Even NOAA adamant Russian fires were 'natural,' cannot be blamed on man

2010-08-21T00:25:00.012-06:00

8/13/10 report, NOAA isn't giving up on global warming yet- they'd be out of jobs for starters-but they are adamant that the

Russian fires were due to natural causes.

(This part near end of piece):"Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet,

greenhouse gas forcing

fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia.

The natural process of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking,

are the principal cause for this heat wave.

It is not known whether, or to what extent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer. It is important to note that observations reveal no trend in a daily frequency of July blocking over the period since 1948, nor is there an appreciable trend in the absolute values of upper tropospheric summertime heights over western Russia for the period since 1900."...

8/13/10, "The Russian Heat Wave of 2010," from US Dept. of Commerce, Draft report by NOAA CSI,(above text near bottom of page about 9/10 down)

via Climate Depot

Imaginary global warming casts middle class Americans as climate criminals responsible for sinking islands, for which they must pay billions in reparations immediately and yearly--on a fixed date not open to negotiation--in perpetuity. That they themselves are innocent and broke is of no consequence.

SatelliteGate, NOAA satellites can be wrong and no one may know it

2010-08-15T20:50:00.019-06:00

Recently, a NOAA satellite reported abnormally high temperatures for Lake Michigan which they've now admitted were false. A satellite involved in reporting these numbers may have been scheduled for the scrap heap in 2007 or earlier but was still being used for official data. NOAA made changes to their website as a result of this chain of events over the past several weeks. But no NY Times headline saying NOAA's data is all in doubt and call for an open investigation of all weather satellites.

Another example why grandiose announcements about global warming by NOAA and those with financial and political interests should be disregarded. The existence of defective satellite data only emerged when a private citizen came upon material that a properly functioning business would have caught on its own. NOAA's first reaction when presented with the nonsensical data was to ridicule the idea.

8/15/10: "WELL DONE to all involved in this SATELLITEGATE expose!

It helps explain puzzles many have had including...smoothed world temperatures (both land and reported satellite) over recent years especially this year/last decade (?) seemed 'too high'.

This revelation further confirms something I and Tom Harris said on Russia Today TV Feb (5th) 2010 namely that WE JUST DO NOT reliably KNOW what world temperatures are and have been doing over the last decade or century. See Laura Emmet's superb ClimateGate report here (Video)

We do know local things of course like it has been and is very hot in Russia and has been astoundingly cold in parts of South America and Australia compared with normal, but
these monstrous data blunders

will obscure rational discussion and temperature reportage.

The climate hype industry will do everything in its power to put a lid on this one. Imagine if it were found the satellite data had been reading minus 200F in Michigan etc and that had been used in input for world averages,

THERE WOULD BE FRONT PAGE NEWS AND ENRAGED QUESTIONS IN EVERY ELECTED (and unelected) PUBLIC FORUM IN THE WORLD

coupled with public sackings of the scientists involved and the most dire 'end of the world' warnings possible

and redoubled calls for carbon supertaxes.

The key questions are:-

Why are ALL the errors and tricks in data collection and processing found since Climategate broke of the sort which make temperatures too high?

How bad is this error and how long has it been going on for?

Are there other errors in satellite data?

What parts of the globe does it mainly concern?

WHEN and HOW will we get a reliable world temperature data set; and just WHAT is the best (most reliable) data set around?

Could it be that the world temp peak (believed) of around 1998 - 2003 was no higher than that around 1935-1940?

Are we actually heading for the next ice age as lake Michagan boils according to [satellite] measurements?!

SOURCE

Corbyn also comments on the recent Russian heatwave here. Excerpt:

"The present and recent superheat in Russia, superfloods in Pakistan and supercold in much of South America (Odd we haven't heard much about that bit of 'Climate Change') might be new to them but they are nothing new to the world and are part of essentially PREDICTABLE natural solar-magnetic lunar cycles."

via Tom Nelson

8/16 Update, "Top Climate Scientists speak out on the SatelliteGate Scandal," by John O'Sullivan, Canada Free Press, via ClimateDepot

***Update: Another satellite/computer snafu:

8/21/10, BBC, "Computer blow to Europe's Goce Gravity Satellite," by J. Amos

'Gravity Satellite' has snafu, data was hoped to be used in 'climate' area. No amount of money is too great in the effort to get some kind, any kind of data that can be dressed up to prove global warming.

"A senior investigation board at Esa is looking into the root causes of the

computer failures,

to understand the implications for other satellite missions....This data will have many applications,

especially in the area of climate studies

by bringing new insights into how gravity influences the way ocean waters move and so

redistribute heat around the planet."...

Global warming (which includes global cooling) causes heart attacks-BBC

2010-08-11T00:58:00.008-06:00

Either way, the US middle class is guilty of climate crimes and must pay billions immediately to UN grifters, their relatives, and hedge fund billionaires. ed.

8/10/10, BBC: "Climate change 'will increase heart deaths'" M. Roberts, Health reporter

"Many more people will die of heart problems as global warming continues, experts are warning.

Climate extremes of hot and cold will become more common and this will puts strain on people's hearts, doctors say.

A study in the British Medical Journal found that each 1C temperature drop on a single day in the UK is linked to 200 extra heart attacks.

Heatwaves, meanwhile, increase heart deaths from other causes, as shown by the events in Paris during summer 2003."...

An embarrassing Washington Post global warming editorial. Shady NOAA daily fodder should have been checked...

2010-08-02T19:20:00.015-06:00

Yes, we will check and double check the claims that predict our doom. As it happens, we paid for most of the 'research,' too. So we will check it again. No offense. (Paraphrasing Marc Sheppard).

8/2, "Comment on a Washington Post editorial, "The truth about global warming," --Another media disconnect," by Roger Pielke, Sr.

Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. notes words of Nobel Prize winner Phil Jones opposing those of the Washington Post. By now it is widely known that there is no evidence of use of independent sets of raw land surface temperature data accepted and used by NOAA, the UN, the UK, or the EPA. They have all used the same government generated raw data (reference report at end of this post by Marc Sheppard of American Thinker.** Or, "American Stinker" as a ClimateGate emailer refers to it (10/5/09). And the data was obtained from increasingly fewer station sites and subject to adjustments made by government employees.

(In the case Mr. Pielke cites, it's not a matter of understanding science. It's promoting sensational material issued on a day to day basis without researching it a little):

"There is an editorial today in the Washington Post titled “The truth about global warming” which illustrates the failure of the author of this editorial to properly investigate claims in the NOAA report regarding the climate system.

This is yet another media disconnect with the real world. I am discussing just one of their erroneous claims here.

The article writes

“If the land surface records were systematically flawed
and the globe had not really warmed,
then it would be almost impossible to explain the concurrent changes in this
wide range of indicators produced
by many independent groups,” the report said.”...

With respect to the land surface temperature record [which is the primary metric used to diagnose global warming by NOAA],

We have reported on this in peer-reviewed papers (e.g. see) and on this weblog (e.g. see and see).

As Phil Jones himself has reported (see Section 7)

“The raw surface temperature data from which all of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived
are essentially the same.
The best estimate that has been reported is that 90–95% of the raw data in each of the analyses
is the same (P. Jones, personal communication, 2003).”

It is widely agreed that there has been warming of the climate system, as is more appropriately monitored by the changes in upper ocean heat content (see, see and see).

However, the quantitative value of this warming as measured by the global and land surface temperature trends from different groups

are NOT independent from each other.

Indeed, there is peer reviewed research that indicates an overstatement of the magnitude of the warming as a result of a

warm bias in the land surface temperature record;

Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841.

Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2010: Correction to: “An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841″, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D1, doi:10.1029/2009JD013655

The NOAA report is in error in their claim and the Washington Post

editorial swallowed this claim

without a proper investigation of its validity.

I will have a post on the other claims in the NOAA report in an upcoming post." ****

My notes on the Washington Post's endless entanglement with profits and politics of so-called global warming:

Married to the mob, the Washington Post's 'environmental' "reporter" Juliet Eilperin is married to

(political activist group) Center for American Progess 'Climate' Specialist Andrew Light

whose work at CAP's Global Climate Network is patronized by UN climate boss/lobbyist/steamy romance novelist, Rajendra Pachauri.

Fittingly, Mr. Light's resume says he's an
expert on 'ethics.'....

"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.)

*Jane Lubchenco promoted by Obama to head of NOAA:

12/18/08, "Lubchenco will helm National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration," Washington Post, Juliet Eilperin

6/28/10, "Getting help from the press," Gloucester Times, Nancy Gaines, Lubchenco founded a group to train global warming scientists to use media to shape government policy.

7/13/10, "Lawyer cites ethics issues with NOAA Counsel funds," Gloucester Times, Richard Gaines

NOAA counsel Lois Schiffer, a Lubchenco hire, was cited by US investigator for stalling efforts to clean up of fraud at NOAA.
Three congressmen called for Lubchenco to step down. Obama blocked the move.

from Marc Sheppard, American Thinker, 1/22/10:

"NOAA – Data In / Garbage Out

"Although satellite temperature measurements have been available since 1978, most global temperature analyses still rely on data captured from land-based thermometers, scattered more or less about the planet. It is that data which NOAA receives and disseminates – although not before performing some sleight-of-hand on it.

Smith has done much of the heavy lifting involved in analyzing the NOAA/GISS data and software, and he chronicles his often frustrating experiences at his fascinating website. There, detail-seekers will find plenty to satisfy, divided into easily-navigated sections — some designed specifically for us “geeks,” but most readily approachable to readers of all technical strata.

Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.
Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.

Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.

It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).

For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that

It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.

That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out –

will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.

Overall, U.S. online stations have dropped from a peak of 1,850 in 1963 to a low of 136 as of 2007. In his blog, Smith wittily observed that “the Thermometer Langoliers have eaten 9/10 of the thermometers in the USA[,] including all the cold ones in California.” But he was deadly serious after comparing current to previous versions of USHCN data and discovering that this

“selection bias” creates a +0.6°C warming in U.S. temperature history.

And no wonder — imagine the accuracy of campaign tracking polls were Gallup to include only the replies of Democrats in their statistics. But it gets worse.

Prior to publication, NOAA effects a number of “adjustments” to the cherry-picked stations’ data, supposedly to eliminate flagrant outliers,

adjust for time of day heat variance, and “homogenize” stations with their neighbors in order to compensate for discontinuities. This last one, they state, is accomplished by essentially adjusting each to jive closely with the mean of its five closest “neighbors.”

But given the plummeting number of stations, and the likely disregard for the latitude, elevation, or UHI of such neighbors,

it’s no surprise that such “homogenizing” seems to always result in warmer readings."...

from "CRU was but the tip of the iceberg"

We would be nuts "to surrender our freedoms, our economic growth, and even our simplest comforts to duplicitous zealots before checking and

double-checking the work of the prophets predicting our doom
should we refuse. "
Marc Sheppard

via ClimateDepot

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

2010-07-29T22:23:00.007-06:00

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

have a cap-and-trade system in place by August 2008 and wants 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.

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

2010-07-28T22:56:00.007-06:00

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.

Even trading carbon derivatives will be allowed.

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.

No surprise, Goldman Sachs also holds investments in both CCX and the European 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

Some people amazingly take Paul Krugman seriously

2010-07-27T19:36:00.009-06:00

7/27/10, "Krugman's 'Fraud.' Why does the former Enron adviser write things that are flatly untrue?" WSJ, James Taranto

""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

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

2010-07-22T21:33:00.018-06:00

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
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
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
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

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

to beat the crap out of him. Very 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
P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> Ben,
> Thanks for backing me up with whoever Rick is"...

***Reference: Phil Jones himself said in February 2010 that there has been no global warming since 1995 (per BBC and others).

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.

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

2010-07-15T21:20:00.006-06:00

7/15, "Climate talks progress," Politico, Samuelsohn

"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

valuable emission allowances needed for compliance with a mandatory greenhouse gas cap.

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

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

2010-07-13T19:02:00.016-06:00

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....

But now scientists claim that the regularity of the mass extinctions actually disproves the Nemesis theory

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,

saw 10 per cent of the Earth’s inhabitants wiped out.

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

believed to have hit Earth with a force one billion times more powerful than the atomic bomb at Hiroshima."

via Drudge Report

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

2010-07-09T00:41:00.016-06:00

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.

That's a travesty!""

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?

“If implemented, [the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative…. The endorsement of [CO₂] emissions trading was another victory for us…. This agreement will be good for Enron stock!”

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

7/7/10, UK Register, "ClimateGate Report: Campaign to Win Hearts and Minds needed," by Andrew Orlowsky

"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.

'Environmental' media, 'scientists', and government inseparable in global warming hoax

2010-06-30T14:38:00.042-06:00

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.

Fittingly, Eilperin hubby Mr. Light's resume says he's an
expert on 'ethics.'....

6/28, "Getting Help from the Press," Gloucester Times, Nancy Gaines

"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

Pew Charitable Trusts marine fellows was to train the scientists in the ways of the media, the better
to market their message.

"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

a professor whose fisheries center at the University of British Columbia has received some $15 million from Pew.

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

to help shape public policy through the media.

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

P.S. This is not "an incredibly well funded" blog. As opposed to the trillions in carbon trading and other scams behind climate 'reporting' and 'science'. ed.

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.

UN Climate thug George Soros with Indonesian President in May 2010

2010-06-29T19:47:00.006-06:00

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

encourage markets to trade carbon dioxide stored in forests,

while environmentalists want stronger strings attached to any cash."

5/10/10: Jakarta Globe: "He added that Indonesia would seek most of its carbon reductions in

the forestry sector."

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

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

2010-06-15T02:51:00.015-06:00

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," BusinessGreen.com

""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.

ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE

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."

"Firms abusing Kyoto carbon trading scheme: watchdog," Reuters, via Tom Nelson

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

2010-06-10T23:56:00.016-06:00

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

votes to pass cap-and-trade.”"

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.

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

2010-06-06T19:18:00.016-06:00

Rampant carbon trading fraud is "compounding the threat of global warming and climate change and

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

could reach unimaginable heights.

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

3) the US adoption of a national cap-and-trade system to regulate its emissions of carbon dioxide.

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

rise of market depredations and deformations.

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

real danger of its later repeat in the growth of toxic carbon offsets and
fraudulent carbon dioxide emissions permits and allowances, which are now

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

"The global carbon market: the new 'poster-child' of globalization," by Dr. Clive Thomas, Stabroek News (Guyana) via Tom Nelson

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.

Reuters is not an objective news source on global warming fraud, buys carbon trading website

2010-05-31T16:13:00.007-06:00

Reuters agrees to buy a carbon trading website as daily revelations confirm that global warming does not exist and the so-called carbon market cannot possibly help the environment--even if it weren't a magnet for organized crime.
So much for an independent press, protecting the people from government excess. Big media and big government are now one against the people.

5/27/10, Reuters: "Thomson Reuters Corp said on Thursday it will buy Point Carbon A/S, a Norwegian company that provides news and trading analytics for the energy and environmental markets.

Point Carbon (www.pointcarbon.com/) provides analysis and news about the carbon, oil, gas and other energy markets to banks, traders, portfolio managers,
companies and governments, Thomson Reuters said.

The purchase price was not disclosed.

The agreement to buy Point Carbon comes as public concern about global warming and rising energy consumption grows and

investors seek opportunities to make money from these trends.

Last year, Thomson Reuters rival Bloomberg LP bought New Energy Finance, a company that provides similar services.

One of the more popular ways to trade in the energy sector with an eye on the environment is through carbon markets, where

investors buy and sell "carbon credits."

These are created when governments cap the amount of greenhouse gases that factories and other polluters emit. Companies that do not use their full allotment can sell their excess credits to those that need them to meet their cap....

The global carbon market grew 6 percent last year to $144 billion, the World Bank said this week."...

"Thomson Reuters to buy Norway's Point Carbon" via Tom Nelson

Yearning for global warming legislation even after knowing global warming does not exist, leaves only 1 conclusion

2010-05-29T21:08:00.013-06:00

The point has always been the trillion dollar carbon trading market, which was up and running before most people ever heard of climate scientists.

NY Times is concerned people knowing catastrophic man-made global warming does not exist will make crippling legislation tougher to pass. Not worried that for decades--with major help from the Times--thugs have

built a global industry based only on the desire to extract billions from
evil middle class Americans.

5/29/10, Sheppard, American Thinker: "Of course, the (NY) Times abhor the new public awareness as it

“will make it harder to pass legislation like a fuel tax increase and to persuade people to make sacrifices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

But shouldn’t facts drive policy?

Not according to Greenpeace spokesman Ben Stewart, quoted by the Times complaining that “[l]egitimacy has shifted to the side of the climate skeptics, and that is
a big, big problem.”"

"Are climate alarmists losing the mainstream media?"

Pollution and sinking islands due to CO2 endangerment are two different things. ed.

George Soros (the actual president) continues to divert US tax dollars to global warming scams

2010-05-24T19:05:00.015-06:00

1/30/10, "IMF proposes climate fund idea put forth earlier by George Soros"

5/25/10, NY Times: New plans to revive carbon trading with 'green bonds'

"...national governments could withhold large quantities of permits from the market to raise demand and increase their price, according to officials who had seen the latest draft....

Ms. Hedegaard also would leave the way open to recognizing future credits from reductions made overseas, including the existing U.N. system

or from new projects like the green bonds.

If the European Commission agrees on the report Wednesday, it then would formally call on E.U. heads of state and governments to consider the proposals at a summit meeting on June 17." ********

Soros advised democrat congress under Treas. Sec. Hank Paulson NOT to use TARP money to help troubled assets but to use it for equity instead. Soros says he really influenced policy at that time. Since then (2008) I'd say just about every move made by the US government is the same Soros would make, including pretending to be a baseball fan.

Carbon trading--the real ClimateGate

New lead-in for Oakland A's games on KTRB brings listeners

2010-05-23T14:18:00.003-06:00

5/21- Oakland A's flagship 860 Xtra/KTRB airs Michael Savage radio show which Rich Lieberman notes is bringing in new listeners to the station.

Catastrophe for UN cap and trade scam, mismanagement, Goldman Sachs faces loss-5/19/10-Bloomberg

2010-05-19T14:24:00.013-06:00

5/19/10 "Emission traders’ most-profitable credits, linked to greenhouse gases considered

more harmful than carbon dioxide,

are dragging the United Nations carbon market to

its biggest discount in a year.

The UN faces a devaluation of the tradable credits it gives investors that pay for projects to reduce hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs,

because the European Union may favor alternatives such as windfarms to combat global warming.

UN offsets for 2012 traded at 4.02 euros ($4.90) a metric ton less than comparable EU permits, almost twice the spread at the end of last year.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc are among investors that may get lower returns amid a clampdown

on HFCs, which are known as “super gases” because they can trap 11,700 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Bloomberg New Energy Finance said the UN market may fall into two tiers by 2013, with “low quality” offsets dropping to about 7 euros versus 11 euros for those not affected by any EU discount.

“The market believes these offsets are environmentally tainted”

because it is marking down HFC projects, said Alex Desbarres, an energy analyst with Datamonitor in London, which provides analysis of energy markets....

Ozone Layer...

About half of the 408.8 million credits issued since October 2005 by the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the second-largest emission markets, stem from plans to cut HFCs.

The projects are profitable because investors can get credits valued at hundreds of millions of euros

after spending about $12 million to construct and $2 million a year to operate facilities that burn away HFCs before they escape into the atmosphere, according to World Bank estimates.

Tires and Chemicals

For example, Indian tire and chemicals maker SRF Ltd. may get 32.6 million UN offsets through 2012 from its project to reduce HFC emissions at a facility in Rajasthan, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Those credits would be worth 397 million euros at yesterday’s closing price of 12.19 euros for 2012 CER futures.

Investors in the project, which already received 16.5 million credits, include BNP Paribas SA, Barclays Plc, Climate Change Capital, EDF SA, Enel SpA and Goldman, the UN data show.

Those returns are in jeopardy as the EU considers restrictions

on how UN offsets can be used in Europe’s cap-and- trade program, the world’s largest. The EU may force emitters to use two tons of HFC credits to get one ton of EU compliance after 2012, according to a draft of a European Commission paper circulated last month. EU leaders are set to consider the suggestions in June.

In other energy markets, a new plan for cutting U.S. greenhouse gases by creating a cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide

includes trading limits that will drive up costs,
the International Emissions Trading Association said. The U.S. plan banned the use of HFC offsets.

‘Evolution’

Too many UN emissions offsets are being awarded to HFC projects and other industrial gas systems, according to the EU draft. The overuse of those credits “hampers the evolution towards using the carbon market to incentivize cost effective reductions in other areas,” the draft said.

There is currently no exchange-traded market for CERs beyond 2012. The ECX, the biggest bourse for carbon trading, may introduce post-2012 CERs with restrictions at an unspecified time, Patrick Birley, chief executive officer, said in an interview.

Doubts about the Clean Development Mechanism may extend for months or years. This November’s global climate summit in Mexico may focus on the “architecture” for reducing global warming rather than a binding agreement, the UN said.

The UN system provides a needed incentive to destroy HFCs, Yvo de Boer, the outgoing head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said yesterday in an interview in Manama, Bahrain.

‘Very Disappointing’

“It is very disappointing for developing countries that want to bring a certain carbon commodity onto the international market to then discover that certain key buyers are not interested in buying that commodity,” de Boer said...

“If the EU introduces strong quality restrictions, the CER market may fragment into a market for low quality and a market for high quality CERs,” Aimie Parpia, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London, said in a May 12 interview.

A two-tiered UN market is “logical,” said Mark Meyrick, head of the carbon desk in Rotterdam at the trading unit of Eneco Holding NV, the Dutch utility.

The EU should consider allowing high-quality credits linked to reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries, known as REDD Plus offsets, Meyrick said.

“It’s more environmentally credible to allow REDD Plus credits in the EU program after 2012 than proportions

of industrial-gas credits,” he said."

from Bloomberg,Business Week, by Matthew Carr, "'Tainted' credits cut US carbon price", via Tom Nelson

Climate bill written by lobbyists and profiteers like Exelon to finally extinguish the American middle class

2010-05-12T18:51:00.018-06:00

A Forbes article details that "Exelon wrote the provisions allocating the energy use "allowances", or ration coupons. Others, including (according to Sen. Kerry) BP, wrote the provisions applying to oil companies, to ensure costs are passed straight through to you."..

"But the windfall, arranged by politicians, comes from average American families. The company (Exelon) even admits the whole sordid mess in a Forbes article from earlier this year:

"Exelon needs that legislation to happen sooner rather than later. Without a carbon price of some sort, Exelon's fortunes aren't so bright.... 'The conundrums are real,' [Exelon CEO John] Rowe acknowledges. 'There's nothing that's going to drive Exelon's profit in the next couple of years wildly. It just isn't going to happen.'

Except, of course, carbon legislation. And because of that, the company views spending on
lobbying for legislation almost like a capital expense....

Exelon has very deep ties to the Obama Administration.
Frank M. Clark, who runs ComEd, helped advise Obama before he ran for President and is one of Obama's largest fundraisers. Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, worked as a consultant to Exelon. Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, helped create Exelon. Emanuel was hired by Rowe to help broker the $8.2 billion deal between Unicom and Peco when Emanuel was at the investment bank Wasserstein Perella (now Dresdner Kleinwort). In his two-year career there
Emanuel earned $16.2 million, according to congressional disclosures.
His biggest deal was the Exelon merger." ...
The (Forbes) article details how Exelon wrote the provisions allocating the energy use "allowances", or ration coupons.
Others, including (according to Sen. Kerry) BP, wrote the provisions applying to oil companies, to ensure costs are passed straight through to you."...
Reference: "Exelon's carbon advantage," Forbes, 12/31/09, J. Fahey, via Climate Depot

MLB has no tears for Rape Trees in Arizona, rewards Mexico with World Baseball Classic money

2010-05-01T21:32:00.013-06:00

For MLB and its steno pool RAPE TREES ARE OK, but asking anyone for ID is a crime. MLB rewards this kind of behavior by drooling over Mexico and giving them the World Baseball Classic.

Top photo one of many Rape Trees in Arizona left by Mexicans who brought young girls over the border and raped them. By all means, address this by canceling the All Star game in Arizona as per sycophant Bud Selig girly men. ed.

"A recent report from the Cronkite News Service, a student-run news service of Arizona State University, shed the national spotlight on a new immigration problem plaguing the desert border towns of Arizona:

so called “rape trees,” trees on the U.S. side of the border littered with women’s undergarments.

Mexican drug cartel members and the coyotes, who smuggle immigrants across the border, are believed to rape the women as soon as they enter U.S. territory to instill fear, intimidate and control them. When the coyote-rapists are finished,

they hang the women’s panties from the trees as trophies to mark
their brutal conquests.

These “rape trees” are becoming more common along the Arizona border counties of Pima and Cochise, as coyotes and drug cartel members find human trafficking more lucrative than drug smuggling.

With the shrinking U.S. economy and high un-employment rate, fewer and fewer Mexican immigrants are crossing the borders for work. As the Mexican authorities push back against the drug cartels, it’s getting harder to smuggle drugs across the border. The result is the increased smuggling of young women, who are immediately forced into prostitution and slavery. "

""Rape Trees" frame Arizona-Mexico border: Grim Reminders," 3/16/09, Now Public

Arizona police shot by illegal immigrant today with AK47, ambushed, don't tell MLB, AP and media partners

2010-04-30T23:05:00.009-06:00

From the article, the illegal immigrants are moving farther north into Arizona. Why would MLBPA want to preserve a system where violent crime and death are run of the mill daily events? Why would MLB's Sandy Alderson reference the law as "profiling" which it is not? (Update, 5/1-the Sandy Alderson quote has been removed from the AP article-ed) Why would he not use his media opportunity to correctly characterize the daily life of Arizona residents? What a surprise they got a quote from Ozzie Guillen. By all means, stay away from Arizona and the rest of the United States if it bothers you so much.

4/30, Casa Grande, Ariz. - "A Pinal County sheriff's deputy has been released from the hospital after he's shot in the abdomen by a group of suspected illegal immigrants and drug smugglers Friday during patrol south of Phoenix.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu says that Deputy Louie Puroll, 53, was essentially

ambushed by five men, one of which who fired an AK-47 some 20 to 30 rounds at him, hitting him once.

It happened during routine patrol Friday afternoon in the desert near the I-8 west of Casa Grande, an area known as a drug smuggling corridor between Mexico and Phoenix. The deputy radioed in to report he was shot in the abdomen, the Pinal County Sheriff's Office says.

The deputy was tracking a group of five suspected illegal immigrants with several bales of marijuana when he was shot. Two of the five suspects were armed.

The deputy stayed on the line with authorities and used GPS on his phone to help guide them to his location.

A DPS Ranger helicopter with a paramedic landed and airlifted the deputy to a hospital. Deputy Puroll had a chunk of skin torn from just above his left kidney and is reportedly in good condition. Puroll was released from the Casa Grande Regional Medical Center after a few hours of treatment.

Meanwhile, the Pinal County Sheriff's Office tactical team is searching for three more suspects who fled. So far, two people have been caught.

Customs and Border Protection agents stationed in Tucson were also sent to help in the search, and are equipped with night-vision technology in case the manhunt extends into the morning. Sheriff Joe also dispatched some of his deputies, who were participating in a crime sweep in the valley.

Over 200 officers and deputies from various jurisdictions are patroling a 10 by 10 mile area, and six helicopters are flying overhead.

"Just to capture what is going on here, this is literally a trafficking corridor... not just for human smuggling but drug smuggling. And where are they going?
North to Maricopa County," says Sheriff Babeu.

The shooting comes on the heels of the passage of a controversial Arizona immigration enforcement law." via Gateway Pundit

Wishful headline and issue framing by the usual suspect, the NY Times

2010-04-30T21:55:00.011-06:00

UPDATE: Arizona police deputy shot by illegal aliens with AK 47 today, 4/30. Violent crime and death may be acceptable to many people. It is not fine in the United States from now on. MLB can close down its entire billion dollar operation in Arizona if it wishes to. Good bye.

Commenters:

"Phil and Shakira

Rudy123

Where is the outrage for this officer and all the officers killed or injured by illegal alien criminals. Where is the press conference for that? Enjoy your first class trip back to your hell hole country Shakira, you suck you stupid bleach bloned barbie doll singer who has no right even commenting on our situtation. Are you Shakira donating your untold wealth to help give the illegals all the health care you want them to get?????"

"Sad thing is,

Melissa S

With suspected illegal immigrants, officers and border patrol agents can't fire back when they are shot at. Anyone remember those sacrifical border patrol agents in Texas who went to jail when they shot a drug smuggler in the butt? Our deputies, border patrol agents even our ranchers are sitting ducks because

the drug smugglers not only have the guns, they have the public's sympathy. I pray for this deputy and all those who patrol the border." ****

Another misleading headline and story open from the NY Times. This is something one might expect from the National Enquirer. I check in tonight and see on their website the dramatic headline, "Ballplayers join protest of new law," by Michael S. Schmidt. They fooled me, as no ballplayers have done so per their article.

The Times frames the story in its opening sentences in which they reference (a few completely uninformed straggling-ed.) protesters outside Wrigley Field. So now I'm ready for the Times to add names of elite baseball players who've become picketers.

But no players joined in any protests anywhere, nor even made a statement, per the article. (An AP article later tonight quotes Ozzie Guillen and Cesar Izturis objecting to the Arizona law, which is fine. They can avoid Arizona and the entire United States if they choose not to appreciate the terrible problems being inflicted on its residents).The article just rehashed the Players Union statement. No protest, just a statement. The Times headline and story open created a space in readers' minds where a few straggling completely uninformed persons outside Wrigley behave in comparable fashion with elite MLB players, or even the MLBPA, but

the promise was never delivered, no evidence of ballplayers or even the union picketing anywhere. The National Enquirer makes a more honest living than the NY Times in my opinion. ed.

How did US Supreme Court decide CO2 was a danger to humanity? For one, Michael MacCracken. Disgraced UN fraudster is 'advisor' to his group.

2010-04-30T16:12:00.011-06:00

Unbeknown to the evil US middle class, they've been working on the global warming scam for decades. Michael MacCracken is one of the guys who influenced a Supreme Court Justice to declare CO2 a danger to humanity in 2007. Listed as an 'advisor' to MacCracken's 'Climate Institute' is none other than disgraced UN climate Nobel laureate and business tycoon, RJ Pachauri (trained as a railway economist, not a climate scientist):

"Michael C. MacCracken

Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs
Climate Institute

Justice Stevens favorably cited his affidavit relating global climate change to impacts on particular regions in his

April 2007 decision in Massachusetts et al. versus EPA.

Michael C. MacCracken is Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs with the Climate Institute, which is a non-partisan, non-governmental organization established in 1986 to heighten national and international awareness of climate change and to identify practical ways for responding. Dr. MacCracken recently completed a four-year term as president of the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences, during which he served on the executive committees of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics and Scientific Committee for Oceanic Research. He was a lead author of Confronting Climate Change: Avoiding the Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable, which was prepared for the UN's Commission on Sustainable Development. Previously, Dr. MacCracken was the leader of climate change research at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1968-93), and executive director of the Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (1993-97) and of its National Assessment Coordination Office (1997-2001).

Justice Stevens favorably cited his affidavit relating global climate change to impacts on particular regions in

his April 2007 decision in Massachusetts et al. versus EPA."

Obama ignores bad news for Nobel winners Al Gore and UN Climate group-Bangladesh is not sinking. Shows it's not about 'science', just taking money.

2010-04-27T23:39:00.008-06:00

UPDATE: OBAMA IGNORES 'SCIENCE' THAT SAYS BANGLADESH IS NOT SINKING, RIPS MILLIONS MORE FROM STRUGGLING AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES TO GIVE TO BANGLADESH thugs--even though global warming does not exist and Bengladesh is experiencing no repercussions that could be imagined from it. from The New Nation, "US to increase climate fund for Bangladesh," 4/29.

The NY Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, et al. will not report this scandal.

4/27: "Now comes a study from the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) that says the IPCC forgot to factor in the

1 billion tons of sediment carried by Himalayan rivers such as the Ganges and the Brahmaputra into Bangladesh every year....

After fraudulent claims about Himalayan glaciers, African crop harvests and Amazon rain forests, plus a 2007 assessment report based on anecdotal evidence, student term papers and nonpeer-reviewed magazine articles, the panel's doomsday forecast for Bangladesh has been exposed as its latest hoax.

According to the 2007 report, melting glaciers and polar ice would lead to rising sea levels and just a three-foot rise would flood 17% of the low-lying country of Bangladesh by 2050 and create 20 million refugees.

Now comes a study from the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) that says the IPCC forgot to factor in the 1 billion tons of sediment carried by Himalayan rivers such as the Ganges and the Brahmaputra into Bangladesh every year.

CEGIS director Maminul Haque Sarker told AFP that "studies on the effects of climate change in Bangladesh, including those quoted by the IPCC, did not consider the role of sediment in the growth and adjustment process of the country's coast and rivers to the sea level rise." Even if sea levels rose according to IPCC predictions, Sarker says, natural sediment deposits would cancel the effect of any rise.

Apocalyptic changes forecast by climate change alarmists, according to Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the International Commission on Sea Level Change, are not in the cards. Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years."

If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10 cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm."

Six times he and his expert team visited the Maldive Islands to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has, if anything, dropped in recent decades. Venice, Italy, has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr. Morner.

IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri defended his organization's predictions by warning that "on the basis of one study one cannot jump to conclusions."

Yet he and the IPCC jumped to the conclusion that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 based on unsubstantiated student theses

and anecdotes from a magazine for mountain climbers. These claims have been withdrawn amid much laughter....

In February, it was reported that India was pulling out of the IPCC because it could no longer trust the U.N. body's data or conclusions. The day after India's announcement, the Netherlands asked the U.N. to explain why the IPCC had said in its 2007 report, which helped it win its share of a Nobel Prize shared with Al Gore, that 55% of the country was below sea level, a figure the Dutch say is closer to 26%.

There's been a sea change in the consideration of the bogus claims of the IPCC, Gore, Britain's CRU and other climate charlatans. No longer accepted on faith, they are being challenged and disproven by scientific fact.

Our sediments exactly." "IPCC's River of Lies" IBD. Top story via Tom Nelson.

Passive parents key to global warming scam as their children are easily brainwashed in school and via media

2010-04-21T19:29:00.014-06:00

Disgraced UN Climate boss Pachauri allowed to freely mingle with and brainwash children: "On the 40th anniversary of International Earth Day — April 22 —

the emphasis is on children.

Over 150 city schools participated in the week-long series of activities — painting, debates, and dance competitions, among others — that were held as part of the Environment Education and Awareness program organized by (Pachauri's) NGO TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute) in association with NDPL, Delhi Jal Board, Hewlett Packard, and National Science Centre. ...

TERI believes in catching the young minds

and orienting them towards environmental stewardship,’’ said Dr Pachauri,

director general, TERI. "...(Pachauri is of course also the disgraced UN Climate Report boss) ed. fromTimes of India, via Tom Nelson

Environmental stewardship is great, but is not the concern of global warming thugs.

The climate industry rests on the criminally false assumption that catastrophic man caused climate change (global warming) exists, and is largely caused by evil US citizens who therefore must pay billions in reparations. Money must be immediate and continue indefinitely to enrich corrupt UN grifters, brutal equatorial dictators, billionaire hedge fund thugs and various other "stakeholders" with the Chicago Climate Exchange. We must surrender our lives, our families and our sovereignty without complaint to unelected imperialist global thugs. ed.

Death of capitalism goal of global warming activists, Hollywood joins

2010-04-20T23:15:00.007-06:00

"Bolivian President Evo Morales opened a "people's conference" on climate change on Tuesday with an attack on capitalism's debt to global warming...

Environmental activists, indigenous leaders and Hollywood celebrities were scheduled to take part in the three-day summit focusing on the world's poorest, which they say were largely ignored at official United Nations-sponsored climate talks in Copenhagen last December.

"Either capitalism dies, or it will be Mother Earth," leftist Morales said to a crowd of some 20,000 people....

"We're here because industrialized countries have not honored their promises."

The "People's World Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth Rights" will draft new proposals for the next UN climate talks in Mexico at the end of the year."...from Jakarta Globe, via Tom Nelson

The US government--far from eschewing the above speaker and his followers, has agreed Americans must be punished and promises to take even more money away from them and give it to people like this for 'climate reparations.' How is this not a crime? ed.

George Soros is the convicted criminal leader of the global warming movement. Enabled by drooling adulation from the media.

Washington Post employee oblivious to real 'Soviet-style blackout'

2010-04-13T18:49:00.006-06:00

Washington Post's media guy Howard Kurtz might want to consider an actual 'Soviet-style blackout' that has real human consequences: the Washington Post's refusal to report that global warming is a fraud. The Post front man is pained instead about publicity for its political Pulitzer Awards-judged by such head cases as NY Times Tom Friedman:

From Howard Kurtz Twitter: "Soviet-style blackout: Washington Times story on Pulitzers never mentions WP's four prizes. Stay classy, guys. http://tinyurl.com/y2v8prh"

Item via Poynter.org/Romenesko

After weeks of no proof of incendiary speech, the Washington Post cannot bear to give up the idea

2010-04-11T21:48:00.008-06:00

Similar to not reporting the truth about global warming, the Washington Post chooses not to report that racist incidents did not take place, ie that there is not a shred of evidence for same after weeks of searching. They do this because no one in authority has the guts to stand up to them. Without manufacturing racism, how could the Washington Post stay in business?

All the President's Men Again, this time covering up the global warming scandal. In 2010, media silence is aided by corrupt politicians.

2010-04-06T16:00:00.011-06:00

The mere fact that big news outlets chose to avoid the topic almost made the Washington Post drop the Watergate story.

"WOODWARD AND BERNSTEIN

Scott, Foreign Editor: It's a dangerous story for this paper.
Ben Bradlee: How dangerous?
Scott, Foreign Editor: Well, it's not that we're using nameless sources that bothers me. Or that everything we print, the White House denies. Or that

no other papers are reprinting our stuff.

Howard Simons: What then?

Scott, Foreign Editor: Look, there are two thousand reporters in this town,
are there five on Watergate?

When did the Washington Post suddenly get the monopoly on wisdom? Why would the republicans do it? McGovern's self-destructed just like Humphries, Muskie, the bunch of them. I don't believe this story. It doesn't make sense."

from The American Chef blog, 1/19/09, photo above from Poynter.org

Criminally false assumption of man caused climate change should make pursuit of climate bills a crime as well

2010-03-28T13:43:00.006-06:00

"US cap and trade is a glittering, trillion-dollar prize on which all the warmists' long-term plans rely. They are not going to give it up without a struggle." EUReferendum

The best of this organized crime is computerized carbon trading already exceeding predictions for rampant fraud and theft.Which begs the question, why shouldn't any US legislator who advances "climate" bills face legal consequences?

"Although cap-and-trade has fallen dramatically in political favor in Washington as the U.S. answer to climate change, this approach to reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions is by no means “dead.”

The evolving Kerry-Graham-Lieberman legislation has a cap-and-trade system at its heart for the electricity-generation sector, with other sectors to be phased in later (and it employs another market-based approach, a series of fuel taxes for the transportation sector linked to the market price for allowances).

Of course, due to the evolving political climate, the three Senators will
probably not call their system “cap-and-trade,” but will give it
some other creative label.

The competitor proposal from Senators Cantwell and Collins — the CLEAR Act — has been labeled by those Senators as a “cap-and-dividend” approach, but it is nothing more nor less

than a cap-and-trade system with a particular allocation mechanism (100% auction)

and a particular use of revenues (75% directly rebated to households) — and, it should be mentioned, some

unfortunate and unnecessary restrictions on allowance trading.

And we should not forget that cap-and-trade continues to emerge as the preferred policy instrument to address climate change emissions throughout the industrialized world — in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan (as I wrote about in a recent post)."...

3/28, Ethiopian Review by Robert Stavine, "Who killed cap and trade?" via Tom Nelson

The climate industry rests on the criminally false assumption that catastrophic man caused climate change (global warming) exists, and is largely caused by evil US citizens who therefore must pay billions in reparations.

Petition to suspend California global warming bill (that only enriched carbon traders)

2010-03-25T20:46:00.007-06:00

"Official Petition to Suspend AB 32
Submitted to the California State Legislature

AB 32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” must immediately be suspended because:

AB 32 will cost our state up to 1.1 million jobs, cost the average family

$3,857 annually, add

nearly $50,000 a year to the average small business’s costs and will result in a total loss of
output of $183 billion.

�� California’s unemployment rate has now reached 12.1%, one of the highest in the nation. With jobs leaving the state, AB 32 is yet another burdensome regulation that will cause morebusinesses to relocate.

�� Scientists agree that because California contributes less than 2% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, AB 32 will do NOTHING to stop global warming, even if it is caused by human
activity.

�� The loss of tax revenue that will result from AB 32 will devastate the budgets of California agencies including those responsible for providing health care to those in need and protecting the environment." ...

In the absence of Woodward & Bernstein: Trillions in CO2 trading, sympathy for brutal equatorial dictators, punishment of evil US middle class

2010-03-22T18:11:00.012-06:00

"The inertia (expansion of 'climate' industry) developed over a decade of sympathetic coverage of the proponents' view of global warming insure

that both the media and the politicians will revert to the default position of support for the mainstream view,

which will comfort them no end. It may even be more comfortable for skeptics--many of whom seem to relish the underdog, David vs. Goliath position.

The institutional mechanisms of science are best grasped and handled by the establishment.

They hold the data.

They commission the projects.

They disburse the money.

They publish the results.

It's a huge advantage."...

"Global warming: how skeptics can win every battle but lose the war," 3/22/10 by Thomas Fuller, examiner.com via Tom Nelson

HSBC Bank praised by Soros global warming pressure group

2010-03-18T18:55:00.009-06:00

HSBC Bank was in at the beginning of the carbon trading calamity, as promoted on the Chicago Climate Exchange page noting its part in Trading Emissions, PLC.

Convicted stock swindler George Soros is an equity partner in litigious pressure group Ceres.org which will spend any amount of time and money to end brutal US productivity and borders. Other billionaires such as Maurice Strong have the same goal. Most US businesses don't realize the global warming industry is a criminal hoax,so turn their lives and efforts over to various Soros' groups.

"Using a 1- to 100-point scoring system, the two highest scoring banks were European-based HSBC Holdings and ABN AMRO with 70 points and 66 points, respectively. More than half of the 40 banks scored under 50 points, with a median score of 42 points.

"More banks realize that climate change is a big business issue, but their responses so far are the tip of the iceberg of what is needed to tackle this colossal global challenge," said Mindy S. Lubber, president of Ceres, which published the report, Corporate Governance and Climate Change: The Banking Sector. "As a key provider of capital and financing worldwide, banks must do more to move the economy away from fossil fuels and high-carbon investments that are exacerbating climate change."

The report employs a "Climate Change Governance Checklist" to evaluate how 16 U.S. and 24 non-U.S. banks are addressing climate change through board of director oversight, management performance, public disclosure, GHG emissions accounting and strategic planning. The report took six months to complete and uses data from securities filings, company reports, company websites, third-party questionnaires and direct company communications.

The report ranked 16 U.S., 15 European, five Asian, three Canadian and one Brazilian bank. The 40 companies include several different classes of financial services firms, including diversified banks, investment banks and asset managers. The final scores are
weighted to reflect the fact that some of the banks – specifically, asset mangers and investment banks –
are not engaged in the full spectrum of product and service offerings assessed by the Climate Change Governance Checklist. (Company scores, profiles and the summary report are available at www.ceres.org.)

Among the key scores:


Bank Category	Highest Scorers	Lowest Scorers
Diversified Banks (20 Total)	HSBC(70 points)	Bank of Nova Scotia(26 points)
	ABN AMRO(66)	TD Bank Financial(25)
	Barclays (61)	Mizuho Financial (24)
	HBOS (61)	Banco Santander (22)
	Deutsche (60)	Banco do Brasil (14)
	Citigroup (59)	Industrial Bank of China (8)
	Bank of America (56)	Bank of China (4)
Investment Banks (5 Total)	Goldman Sachs (53)	Lehman Brothers (26)
	Merrill Lynch (52)	Bear Stearns (0)
	Morgan Stanley (49)
Asset Managers (6 Total)	State Street Corp (36)	Franklin Resources (1)

Leading institutional investors requested the Ceres report, authored by RiskMetrics Group’s Climate Research Team,

to boost understanding and awareness

about the banking sector’s role and response to climate change. The investors are part of the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), an alliance of U.S. institutional investors coordinated by Ceres that collectively manage more than $4 trillion in assets.

"Over the next 40 years, we're looking at the virtual de-carbonization of industrial economies

if the warnings of climate scientists are going to be heeded," said lead author Douglas Cogan, director of Climate Change Research at RiskMetrics Group.

"Banks need to start re-ordering their investment and lending priorities now, especially in the energy sector, to reflect

changing asset and credit valuations."...*****
Who says values have changed and why? Even an activist quoted in this article uses the word "if" regarding existence of catastrophic man made global warming. Why all this for something not proved?.......ed. ******

"So who will win in this battle to monetize

the carbon?

While science was killed as an innocent bystander,

the UN with its desire for funding via international taxation vies

with exchange corporations who want a piece of the

new $300 billion market."

John Kerry and cockroaches seek trillions in a US 'carbon market'

2010-03-14T17:26:00.014-06:00

I heard John Kerry say he just needs "a PRICE" on carbon, looking directly into a tv camera. I understand. He and his pals have built a carbon endangerment scam over many years. At the last minute people found out it's just a way to deliver our lives to a few cockroaches who honestly believe they are entitled to stop this entire country.

Desperate to deliver long planned subjugation of US citizens to a global organized crime syndicate (the UN) and a bunch of billionaire hedge funds, John Kerry actually thinks he can sell this enslavement to the American people as a wonderful gift.

"Sen. John F. Kerry, hoping to win over wavering senators, said he is pushing environmental reforms to create jobs and spark energy independence,

with climate benefits along “for the ride.”

Kerry, (D-Mass.), said legislation he’s crafting with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will differ from a House-passed bill that embraces a so-called “cap and trade” approach to reduce pollution that some scientists blame for global warming.

“It will be a very different mix of a bill from where we were at the end of the House effort,” Kerry said. “It will be simpler, and hopefully, capable of attracting support.

By pushing for alternative sources of energy such as wind, solar and nuclear power, the bill could create more than a million jobs while reducing pollution and cleaning up the air,

Kerry said."... ("Kerry said" so? Unfortunately, what he said is wrong and misleading. Paid political consultants have advised proponents that by scrapping use of the term 'cap and trade', just call it something else, and you can fool people into accepting it). ed.

AP, continuing, "“It’s primarily a jobs bill, and

an energy independence bill and a pollution reduction-health-clean air bill,” Kerry said.
“Climate sort of follows. It’s on for the ride.”

Kerry and other Senate sponsors have avoided the phrase “cap and trade” whenever possible.

But Kerry bristled at the notion that the new focus is an effort to rebrand an unpopular idea:

“This has nothing to do with branding. We are not trying to switch hit here. This is a different bill. It will have a different structure.”

Kerry declined to reveal details, but said the measure aims to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollution-causing greenhouse gases by about 17 percent by 2020....

About half the nation’s electricity comes from coal."

This is just words, they want the money which is already embedding cap and trade deals on states and regions. ed.

"John Kerry touts jobs in climate bill," 3/13/10, AP, Boston Herald via Tom Nelson

Why is UN Climate chief officially advising Deutsche Bank on investments whose success depends on UN disputed claims?

2010-03-14T17:17:00.008-06:00

"Members of the Climate Change Advisory Board

Lord Browne, Managing Director and Managing Partner (Europe), Riverstone Holdings LLC and former CEO of BP
John Coomber, Member of the Board of Directors, Swiss Re and Chairman, The Climate Group
Fabio Feldmann, CEO, Fabio Feldmann Consultores and former Executive Secretary, Brazilian Forum on Climate Change
Amory B. Lovins, Chairman and Chief Sientist, Rocky Mountain Institute
Lord Oxburgh, Member of the Advisory Board, Climate Change Capital and Former Chairman of Shell
Dr. R. K. Pachauri, Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, CBE, Founding Director of Potsdam Institut for Climate Impact Research
Professor Robert Socolow, Co-Director, The Carbon Mitigation Initiative and Professor, Princeton University
Professor Klaus Töpfer, Former Minister for Environment, Germany
Professor Hongren Zhang, Former President, International Union of Geological Science and former Vice Minister of Geology and Mineral Resources, China"

"Deutsche Bank Asset Management had about

$6 billion under management as of September 2009 in

climate related investments."...

Where have you gone, WOODWARD & BERNSTEIN? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you to save us from Global Warming crime

2010-03-11T00:46:00.024-07:00

Update: Of course, now the UN Climate report 'review' isn't happening at all.

THEY USED TO SAY 'FOLLOW THE MONEY.' No more-not with Global Warming fraud. After 3 decades of meticulous planning, they don't want you to. Because it's the answer to the greatest crime against humanity in history.

The Nobel committee could not possibly have read the United Nations climate report now extensively documented to be a sloppy propaganda piece. Amid fanfare, it's said the disgraced 'report' will get a big deal review by independent 'experts.'

The question is, who will pay for the 'review?'

The Telegraph article prays to God you won't ask that question. The answer is,

"the United Nations" is paying for the 'review' of its own report.

The Telegraph does not mention this crucial fact until the very end of its long PR piece which whitewashes the whole thing anyway, just slipping in,

"The review will be funded by the UN,

although it will be independent. A panel of experts has yet to be announced. The review should be finished by the end of August. " (end of Louise Gray puff piece)

I ask again, where have you gone Woodward and Bernstein?

via Tom Nelson

Beltway insiders and their media still count on massive organized crime of non-existent global warming-demand billions in US taxpayer reparations

2010-03-08T19:24:00.016-07:00

Evil Americans must above all hand over their wages immediately. That is the point of this scam made up decades ago by sick billionaires who are proud of their efforts to this day: to stop America, to stop capitalism, and to enslave the middle class. When will the middle class begin to put these men on trial for a crime?

This article promotes disproven material that was never proved to begin with. So does the US president. The methods and scope of the man made global warming attack are organized crime by any definition with trillions at stake and billions already robbed. The AP is still passing this off as reparations owed from the "rich" US (the AP doesn't know the US is broke and on schedule to be even worse?) to the "poor" countries, which are brutal thug dictators. Answers for each of the points made in this article have been posted countless times on this blog and others over many hours and months. "Poor" countries have already been given a lot of money. The money has been stolen and/or misspent.

"The head of the International Monetary Fund on Monday proposed a plan for the world's governments

to pool together

to raise money needed to adapt

to climate change, a rare step

for an organization that normally does not develop environmental policies.

IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said the Fund is concerned about the

huge amount of funding needed and

the effect that will have on the global economy.

He added that the proposal may help efforts

to reach a binding agreement on climate change later this year.

Strauss-Kahn proposed that countries adopt a quota system similar to the one the Fund uses to raise its own money, which could bring in money faster than proposals to increase carbon taxes or other fundraising methods....

The IMF raises funds from its 185 members mainly through a quota system that is based broadly on each country's economic size.

The United States is currently the largest shareholder.

"We all know that (carbon taxes and other fundraising methods) will take time and we don't have this time. So we need something which looks like an interim solution, which will bridge the gap between now and the time when those carbon taxes will be big enough to solve the problem," Strauss-Kahn said. "And that is exactly what the IMF proposal is dealing with."

He said a climate change accord

reached last December

estimated $100 billion a year

will be needed

by 2020 to fund programs, including those to help poor nations

deal with droughts,

flooding and

food shortages

expected to be caused by climate change.

Nations failed to reach a binding deal in Copenhagen in December, but

agreed on a voluntary plan

to control greenhouse gas emissions which are blamed for the gradual heating of the Earth that scientists predict will worsen

weather-related disasters.

The accord, however, included collective commitments

by rich countries

to provide billions of dollars to help poor countries adapt to climate change,

a major demand the poor nations had made.

The more than 190 nations will reconvene in Cancun, Mexico, later this year for another attempt to reach a binding agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which sets emissions targets for industrial countries and expires in 2012."

AP report, 3/8, from Kenya, by Tom Maliti, "IMF suggests how to raise climate change funds" via Drudge Report

EPA still embraces faked UN Climate claims against US citizens

2010-02-26T22:26:00.007-07:00

Where are Woodward and Bernstein to save us from corruption today? Answer: In their day, they worked to protect the people from corrupt government. Today they and their followers do the exact reverse: Protect a corrupt government from its entrapped people.

At least 4 faked UN points are being used by the government via the EPA to attack US citizens: intensity of hurricanes, Himalaya melt, frequency of hurricanes due to human actions, tropical forests ruined.

"The Environmental Protection Agency made no bones about where it shopped for its science, proudly proclaiming that

the IPCC had done such a good job that they did not need to do their (mandatory) independent assessment

of the risks posed to U.S. citizens from greenhouse gases, which they now propose to regulate. Now, however, they are not so proud of the IPCC... although their Endangerment Finding relies heavily on the IPCC and uses some of the IPCC's more questionable reporting.

Hat tip to Charlie Martin and Pajamas Media, from which I quote: "During the review of the Environmental Protection Agency budget in today’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing,

both Senator Barbara Boxer — the chair of the committee — and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson distanced themselves from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)."

Both Boxer and Jackson appeared to be trying to distance the EPA from the IPCC report. Boxer said:

In my opening statement, I didn’t quote one international scientist or IPCC report. … We are quoting
the American scientific community here.

When Inhofe directly asked (EPA's) Jackson if she still considered the IPCC report the “gold standard,” she answered:

"The primary focus of the endangerment finding was on climate threat
risks in this country." (*)

Jackson also noted:

"[The errors Inhofe had presented were] international events.

The information on the glaciers and other events doesn’t weaken … the evidence we considered [to make the Endangerment Finding on CO2.]"

So, just how independent is the IPCC's (EPA) findings? Not very--

the Technical Support Document averages almost two references to the IPCC on every page, and

both the Endangerment Finding and the Technical Support Document contain direct reference to IPCC findings that have been revealed to be suspect, due to inadequate sourcing or plain error.

From the EPA's Response to Public Comments, Volume 1:

"In fact, these assessment reports look

at the range of the scientific literature without “cherry-picking” and

it is EPA’s conclusion that by placing

primary reliance on the major assessment reports, we have ensured that the determinations are based on reports that have considered and weighed all views." ...

Number of times the IPCC is mentioned in the Endangerment Finding itself:

49 (in a 52 page document)

Bonus Quote No. 1: The conclusion in the assessment literature that there is the potential for hurricanes to become more intense (and even some evidence that Atlantic hurricanes have already become more intense) reinforces the judgment that coastal communities are now endangered by human-induced climate change, and may face substantially greater risk in the future.

Number of times the IPCC is mentioned in the Technical Support Document to the Endangerment Finding:

396 (in a 210 page document)

Bonus Quote No. 2: Glacier melt in the Himalayas is projected to increase flooding and rock avalanches from destabilized slopes and to affect water resources within the next two to three decades.

Bonus Quote No. 3: The power and frequency of Atlantic hurricanes have increased substantially in
recent decades.

Bonus Quote No. 4: By mid-century, increases in temperature and associated decreases in soil water are projected to lead to gradual replacement of tropical forest by savanna in eastern Amazonia."

(Ed. The EPA is of course wrong in all 4 bonus quotes)

"Joined at the hip: The EPA Endangerment Finding uses the IPCC's questionable science," 2/25/10 by Thomas Fuller. via Climate Depot

*Biggest screaming lie of the day--even the NY Times says that CO2 is globally mixed, that no matter where it originates it masses all over the globe.
ie-It is never about one country.

NY Times Tom Friedman pied on Earth Day by people fed up with his Greenmail

2010-02-20T23:34:00.003-07:00

"Greenwash Guerillas Pie Friedman," 4/23/08: "Thomas Friedman, the author and NY Times columnist, was invited to Brown University to give a keynote speech on Earth Day, before a packed auditorium. His talk, titled "Green is the new Red White ..."

Too big to fail--man made global warming profiteers seek bailouts

2010-02-14T16:05:00.025-07:00

With trillions on the line and possibly down the drain, someone at a billionaire hedge fund extravaganza may have said, hey We're Too Big to Fail, grab some other fool's money to prop us up.

So 'climate' profiteers are pouring good millions after bad, and getting 11th hour support from reliable media pals. The news from actual news sources has been bad for awhile but today everyone knows-

their pyramid scheme is based on nothing . The lead scientist on the Nobel Prize winning UN climate report now says he's not positive after all about the data behind it's key selling point-the one that the EPA based its decision on, the one expressed in the famous

'hockey stick' graph.

Climate Catastrophe Cheerleader the Boston Globe hails an urgent, all out $50 million tax- exempt investment to groups including a Boston Climate group. The group's co-chair is ubiquitous Mindy Lubber, according to a 2009 Boston.gov report (in which Boston's Mayor was joined by Al Gore making an announcement).

In addition to the Boston Climate shake down group, Lubber is President of ceres.org of which George Soros' $3 billion fund is an 'equity shareholder.' As such, Lubber is also director of an $8 trillion dollar 'climate' investment group, INCR 'a project of Ceres'.

Soros was therefore a speaker at the Ceres/INCR/UN hedge fund extravaganza whose main purpose was to whine that US taxpayer dollars must be transferred into their wallets ASAP.

The Barr Foundation sought White House input in making their tax-exempt donation. Heavy.

Reference, Boston Globe, "Barr Foundation giving $50 million to efforts fighting climate change," by Erin Ailworth, 2/14/10

Among investors in INCR 'climate' fund--unfortunately too many
employee retirement and other government funds:


New York City Comptroller's Office
New York City Employees Retirement System
New York State Comptroller's Office
New York State Teachers' Retirement System
North Carolina State Treasurer
Ohio State Treasurer
Oregon State Treasurer's Office
SEIU (Service Employyes Int'l Union)

Speakers at the UN climate shake down artist meeting included disinterested parties such as Goldman Sachs and Soros: "Other summit speakers include (times may change): Goldman Sachs Senior Investment Strategist Abby Joseph Cohen (10:50-11:15 am) AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (3:30 pm) George Soros, Chairman, Soros Fund Management Inc (5:00 pm)" Reference: INCR, 1/14/10, "Investors representing $13 trillion call on US and other countries to move quickly to adopt strong climate change policies, "Cannot Wait for a Global Treaty" investors tell Congress and other government policy makers at United Nations Climate Investors Summit" Reference: "13 Members of Congress, 17 companies and associations file court challenge against EPA 'Endangerment Finding," 2/10/10, PR Newswire,US Newswire Reference: UK Daily Mail, 2/14/10, "Climategate U-turn as Scientist at Centre of row Admits: There has been no Global Warming since 1995" by Jonathan Petre ***************