Not that I believe the United Nations (or any related organization) is actually good for anything other than reminding the rest of us that impotence does exist beyond Viagra users and cocaine addicts, but the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – an autonomous body which reports directly to the UN Security Council and General Assembly – actually did the right thing on Friday.

Not that it actually matters in the grand scheme of things.

Not that it will make a damn bit of difference.

This is the IAEA, after all.

But by a count of 25-3, the IAEA passed a resolution demanding that Iran cease construction of a recently discovered nuclear facility near Qom and put an end to its uranium enrichment program.

Both the United States and Israel applauded the vote.

And yes, you read that correctly … the IAEA demanded Iran cut it out.

Meanwhile, Iran’s response to the IAEA resolution – to go along with five other UN resolutions – was to announce to the world that it is expanding its uranium enrichment program with the construction of ten new plants.

So there!

This smart diplomacy angle is really paying dividends.

The censure from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), with rare backing from Russia and China, provoked anger in Iran where members of parliament demanded the withdrawal of co-operation with UN inspectors.

President Ahmadinejad announced last night that his Cabinet had ordered the building of ten new plants aimed at producing up to 300 tonnes of nuclear fuel a year, with construction to begin on five within two months.

He said that the Cabinet had also been studying plans to start enriching uranium to a higher level — high enough to be used in medical research but below that required for weapons.

Smart diplomacy seems to be cut from the same cloth as smart climate change science.

There really is nothing quite like having infirmity as the prevailing American foreign policy motif.

Indeed, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs released a statement about America’s patience wearing thin with Iran, and the promise of consequences if Iran doesn’t play nice, blah, blah, blah.

Still, I cannot help but wonder why is it that President Obama is willing to accept the notion that Iran is pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, but is not willing to accept that Iran really does want to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth.

foto by Kamil Jufri

Here are a couple links about a really compelling and beautifully done story happening in Indonesia.  Corporations, Governments and conservationists all coming to loggerheads, colliding amongst International and Environmental Land and climate issues as well as ones of corporate social responsibility .  And the photos are kick-ass.  The story is part of a series that is leading up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference held next month in Copenhagen.

The Slide-Show: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/11/30/world/20091130-CLIMATE_index.html

The Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/science/earth/30climate.html?pagewanted=1

Bonus Link:  amazing NYT photo slide show on a photographer shooting people from apartment windows.  Brilliant idea and execution though would of been better unposed.

“HELLO!  Can you help me out today?  I’m fundraising to go to a United Nations Conference in Copenhagen! … Okay, thank you anyway!  Have a good one!”

That was my constant refrain this past week.  I spent a couple of days over the down at the Madeira Kroger’s (our local grocery chain) in a last-ditch attempt to fundraise some sort of meaningful cash.  It wasn’t always easy going.

First, I had to share the entryway with the Salvation Army–which made me feel like a terrible person, and very self-conscious.

Next, my plans took a major hit.  I set up Tuesday and was promised that I could set up on Wednesday as well (which happened to be the day before Thanksgiving) and fundraise; when I got there, they made me go home.  I was ready to kill management!!  I could have gotten another $250 that way.  I am sure!  So, I lost out on good money; they told me to come back Friday evening, after Thanksgiving, when absolutely no one wants to buy more food.  This still disappoints and embitters me.

The job was not always easy, either.  You had to stand right by the sliding doors in the entryway, which was sometimes very cold, and you couldn’t really sit down, lest you be overlooked.  You had to jump in the face of everyone who walked in the door and beg for money (which I don’t like to do).  It does teach you a few things about salesmanship and fundraising, though:

You have approximately half a second when the person walks through the sliding doors to grab their attention by saying Hello.  If you do not do so, they may never notice you at all.  The children generally will, but only about (I would estimate) one-in-ten adults will even glance in your direction.

You have to say hello to everyone, but there are exceptions.  Some people are too busy talking on the phone or with a fellow shopper.  I don’t disturb them.  Some other people plow through the door like the Cavalry.  I don’t disturb them either–they are clearly on a mission and in a hurry.  But most people amble on through, and you must smile and say Hello to these people.

After making contact, you have another 3-5 seconds to get your message out.  You must do it immediately, or you lose the momentum.  You can’t possibly cram your whole mission statement into that timeframe.  In my case, I recited the rather general and neutral statement at the top of this entry.  Those who want to know more will then engage you, and give you a chance to talk about being a youth delegate, sustainable development, your press credentials, etc.  Or, they will say “Not today” and keep on walking.

You can’t really judge a person by how they look.  A lot of people really look grumpy, but you can’t let that stop you.  Chances are they will smile when you address them and try to be polite.

Some folks are not polite.  They outright ignore you, snap at you, or engage in some other form of rude behavior.  My thoughts are that those people are afraid.  They are afraid to engage or else they won’t be able to say No, or they are shy, or think you are the “lower sort”, or whatever.  You can’t let it hurt your feelings, because THEY are the ones with the issue.

Not everyone has to agree with your cause to help you out.  Of course some folks will not agree with you, but don’t be intimidated–most are too polite to argue.  Still, even if they disagree with you or your cause, it doesn’t mean they won’t support you.  One man told me climate change was all nonsense, but still chipped in $5.  Someone else asked me what my stance on the United Nations was.  I told him, “I think it is an excellent forum for nations to discuss their differences and try to coordinate on global issues.  I certainly think the United Nations is a better idea than war.”  He asked me my role there.  I said, “As a youth delegate, I try to keep our lawmakers from messing things up for future generations.  The Secretariat has called us the moral voice of the UN.”  A Vietnam veteran, that man was convinced that the UN was a breeding ground for “communist and muslim spies”, and was not shy about telling me.  But apparently he approved of the idea that discussion is better than war, and that I would be acting as a moral voice to our policymakers.  He hated the UN, but he chipped in another $5 bill to help me out.

Also, it helps to know your audience.  My community is overwhelmingly Republican, which is fine.  But according to recent polls, only about half of Republicans think climate change is even real.  I found it wise to craft my message around the United Nations, the cuteness of being a young person, and to emphasize my role as a moral voice for lawmakers and guardian for future generations.  Certainly, folks who are curious will ask questions, about which you should be very open–but as a diplomat (and not an activist), I craft my speech carefully.

It’s a lot of fun once you get into it, but… I happen to hate asking for money, and I hate standing still.  I could only take about two hours of it on each day.  Still, I raised $137.00 and learned a few things about working a crowd, so I try not to complain too much.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen- COP 15.

Look Out!  Here they come.

“Climate change is a terrible threat, but beating climate change is a historic opportunity to turn humanity onto a path of sustainable growth for everyone. The solutions to climate change will vitalize economies, stabilize environments, and build secure, fairer, more innovative societies. Not only must we act, it makes no sense not to act.”  From the website http://unfccc.int/2860.php

How and who decided the word FAIRER?

“fight to prevent climate disaster”       “global threat of climate change” ” fair and effective deal on climate change”
Change? Where have I seen that word used alot before?  Oh yes it is what President Obama ran on just before he started dismantling our constitution.  Wake up people  Fair, and Disaster somehow are going to cost you more money.

“Publicly they’re saying the science is settled, we’re all doomed unless you close down the economies of the west, whereas privately they’re saying to each other ‘we’ve got it wrong, none of this adds up and it’s a travesty that we can’t explain it.

“Appearing on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Lord Christopher Monckton went further than ever before in his vehement opposition to the elitists running the climate change scam, calling for the UN to be shut down and for fraudulent peddlers of global warming propaganda like Al Gore to be arrested and criminally prosecuted.

“Monckton said that those who are threatening to shut down economies, bankrupt nations, and deepen the problems of the third world by implementing draconian policies in the name of global warming should be indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned “for a very long time”.

Click here to read more

WorldNetDaily.Com

WND threatens U.N. with suit over Copenhagen coverage

Until today, despite repeated requests, the UNFCCC had refused to acknowledge whether Corsi, a two-time No. 1 New York Times bestselling author, will be permitted to attend the meetings that have been hailed by organizers as a major step forward in “global governance.”

WND’s senior staff writer Jerome Corsi has been seeking the credentials from the U.N. Framework Convention for Climate Change for weeks – providing all of the documentation requested and establishing his bona fides as a full-time reporter for the largest independent English-language Internet news organization in the world.

Global climate-change convention refuses to issue press credentials to news agency

Attorneys for WND today threatened the United Nations with a lawsuit for its refusal, thus far, to issue press credentials for coverage of the global climate-change convention next month in Copenhagen.

No matter how  much we might desire it to be so, Iran and its nuclear ambitions are not going anywhere. The United Nations speaks of sanctions, The IAEA wants to inspect, Israel gets worried, Gibbs expresses White House concern. All of these things have occurred over the past few days. But they have also  taken place previously. Seems  to be  the same song, with a higher verse number, maybe#25. I read a comment by David Wilbank  that seems to be the best summation of the entire Iranian nuclear stand-off. Wilbank, the British Foreign Secretary, said that “instead of engaging with us Iran choose to provoke and dissemble.” At least, someone recognizes what is happening.

Meanwhile, the outgoing head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei say the their investigation of Iran’s nuclear facilities is at  a dead-end.  Interesting that as his term ends, he becomes  somewhat more blunt than had previously been the case.

What sparked this latest. Today, Iran announced that it plans to build 10 industrial strength uranium enrichment facilities. This latest was apparently ordered by Hugo Chavez’ buddy, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Now pay lose attention to the following two statements. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs  says that time is running out for Iran to address the concerns of the international community, that apparently includes their Russian friends. The newly announced uranium enrichment facilities are going to built inside mountains to enable them to withstand attack(read that from Israel as Netanyahu has hinted at) from  abroad.

So, the stalemate lurches along. So far, there has been an unwillingness to impose any type of sanctions.Just have to believe that at some point, the proverbial bullet must be bitten and a negotiated agreement will have to give  way to some type of imposed one. How  that would work would certainly be a sticky wicket indeed. But given Iran’s recent track record, methinks there will come a time that it must be done.

Climategate – CRU Source Code Confirms AGW Fraud From Hacked Documents

I discuss the actual source code that was released in the recent hack of the CRU.
The source code confirms the manipulation of climate data by climate scientists.
http://fascistsoup.com/2009/11/23/cli..

Update – Climategate – CRU Source Code Explained

I discuss the actual source code that was released in the recent hack of the CRU.

The source code confirms the manipulation of climate data by climate scientists.

Supporting documentation here:
http://fascistsoup.com/2009/11/25/mor…

Al Gore and his global warming BS is nothing more than a giant plot for the NWO and looting of the people for the enrichment of a few. F%@K The Gorical and say no to Obama’s Cap and Tax. Wake up people. With Obama we will lose our freedom and our nation.

F&%K these lying bast%$@s they are all snake oil salesmen.

Is this the reason that CRU's data has been "lost"?

The UK Times reports.

Excerpt:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

[...]The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

[...] Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

The Washington Times reports on some of the hacked e-mails that talked about data “loss”.

Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU and contributing author to the United Nation’s IPCC report chapter titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes,” says he “accidentally” deleted some raw temperature data used to construct the aggregate temperature data CRU distributed. If you believe that, you’re probably watching too many Al Gore videos.

Mr. Jones is the same professor who warned that global-warming skeptics “have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

The worst part of this mess is that taxpayers footed the bill for all of this “research”. In effect, the government was distributing taxpayer money to “scientific” lobbyists.  These “scientists” then put out suspect data in order to trick the public into voting for increased government power over individuals and businesses – all to “solve” a completely made-up crisis. It’s depressing. The only thing to do to solve this is for the public to vote for smaller government and lower taxes. Everything needs to be privatized.

In just two days after world powers united in condemnation of Iran’s nuclear activities in a rare show of international consensus on the threat posed by Tehran’s continued nuclear defiance, Iran’s Government today announced plans to build ten new uranium enrichment plants and said work would start within two months.

Iran had been caught covering up the existence of one more uranium enrichment site recently, so this is a new strategy for them to pursue, as it is the first time they have announced their nuclear plans to the world.

Western powers say Iran is trying to develop nuclear arms. Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful.

Each site will be the size of the existing Natanz plant with the aim of producing between 250-300 tonnes of uranium a year.

China and Russia joined the United States, Britain, France and Germany in backing an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution censuring Iran and ordering it to halt construction of a secret uranium enrichment plant near Qom.

China, which has shared Moscow’s reluctance to take a hard-line with Tehran, was reportedly persuaded to support the resolution after an emergency meeting with the US National Security Advisor in Beijing last week.

The answer from Tehran was to cut back on cooperation with the UN and any other world league,and prepare to arm itself against the world.

I wonder how long it will take Israel to answer this aggressive move by their hostile neighbor in their region, via the Monroe Doctrine,it is clear what the United States would do if Cuba suddenly ramped up with 12 Nuclear missile sites.

My question is…is it ever possible to win a nuclear war…and what do you think will happen next…

Follow more on this story by clicking on these trusted sources…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8385275.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6936798.ece

Christopher Booker / London Telegraph – November 28, 2009

CO2 emissions will be on top of the agenda at the Copenhagen summit in December.

A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher than they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

Link to entire article below…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Det är roligt det här med demokrati. Alla från höger till vänster babblar om det. Vänstern vill ha “demokratiskt” styre av företag, folkpartiet vill ha mer demokrati i skolorna, och miljöpartiet vill ha mer folkomröstningar för det är mer demokratiskt. Samtidigt finns det ett stort problem med demokrati, och det är den visar upp på stora åsiktsskillnader mellan vanliga medborgare och den politiska eliten. EMU var ett exempel. EU:s nya författning är ett annat. Från punkt till punkt, från straff till utrikespolitik, så stämmer inte politikernas värderingar överrens med vad vanliga medborgare tycker. Direktdemokrati som i Schweiz är därför hatat av såväl media som politiker, eftersom de endast överlever som mellanhänder som blir feta på att filtrera våra åsikter och ge oss någon slags inverterad sörja ut ur andra änden.

Och det finns inget tydligare exempel på detta än nu i Schweiz. Folk har valt att rösta mot fler minareter för att de kort och gott inte gillar dem. Många förstår inte varför folk flyr från länder med förtryck, och sedan försöker bygga upp samma system i sitt nya land. FN går givetvis ut med stark kritik, samma FN som gav Fidel Castro medalj för att vara “Solidaritetens Världshjäte” och Evo Morales “Moder Jords Världshjälte” går nu och säger att det är fel med demokrati. Å andra sidan, när har FN sagt att demokrati är bra?

Det är bara att välja, tycker jag. Antingen tar man demokrati med alla dess för och nackdelar, eller så skapar man en diktatur där det politiskt korrekta får härska, där en elit som vet bättre än du säger till dig vad du ska tycka. Detta mellanting vi har i dag, denna sken-demokrati, gör ingen glad.

For much of the past three decades the political left has religiously (intended use of word) fought every opportunity to demand separation of Church and State. Regardless of the situation such as prayer in school, religious decorations on public property, or tax dollars to religious institutions to provide relief to the needy, the left and their vanguards in the ACLU fight for the separation.

Now with the unraveling of the “settled science,” in the words of Al Gore, it appears to be time for separation of Science and State. Hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants have been used to promote, what appears to be a fraud. This fraud data is behind legislation and treaties that will cost billions of dollars in the coming years. The science is NOT “settled” and claims of peer review now appears to be fraudulent as well. How does one have peer review when the reviewers are involved in the fraud?

Until “REAL” science concerning global warming is conducted, and all of the data that led to the point of having a Copenhagen Treaty Conference is re-examined, the conference should not be held. The politics (grant funding and taxation) of “global warming” must be stopped until independent and true peer reviewed science is conducted. The UN Conference is nothing more than a boondoggle for the 192 countries who will be attending. AGW is just another example of the attempt to redistribute wealth, which has become the main mission of the UN.

When Al Gore made statements that the science was settled (although thousands of scientists disagreed) while making millions on carbon based investments logical individuals took note. When the politicians changed the terminology from global warming to climate change the skeptics knew that the fraud was on. Now that the fraud has been uncovered, the fact that the attacks by politicians and the media are against the whistleblowers and not the perpetuators of the fraud, is further evidence of the politics of global warming.

It is time for separation of “Science and State.”

1984 Natalie und die Kinder:

Buch zur Geschichte von Natalie

London / Berlin. (red). Am 29. November 2009 wurde ein Buch zur Geschichte von Natalie, einer im Urlaubs-Paradies in Nassau in Bahamas in Not geratenen schwangeren Mutter mit ihrer 3jährigen Tochter und einer spektakulären Evakuierungs- Rettungs-Aktion aus dem malerischen Urlaubs-Paradies zurück in die Heimat nach Berlin  als erster Teil einer mehrteiligen Dokumentation und Reportage von dem französisch-deutschen Journalist, Rundfunk-Journalist und Autor, Andreas Klamm – Sabaot veröffentlicht. Weitere Veröffentlichungen in der mehrteiligen Reihe und Reportage folgen.

Informationen zum Buch sind erhältlich bei http://www.bookrix.com/-andreasklamm.

Das Buch ist ein erster Teil einer mehrteiligen Serie und Dokumentation zur Notlage der jungen, inzwischen zweifachen Mutter von zwei Töchtern Natalie.

1984 Natalie und die Kinder

Not im Urlaubs-Paradies  in Nassau in Bahamas

MJB Mission News

ISSN 1999-8414

Autor: Andreas Klamm – Sabaot, Journalist

84 Seiten, 1. Auflage, Sprache deutsch
BookRix-Edition: 90 Seiten, 1. Auflage, Sprache deutsch

29. November 2009

erschienen bei

www.bookrix.com

Verlag und Distrubution: Grace Med Care Ltd. London, Groß Britannien (MEDIA MEDICAL AND CARE Service, international), John Baptist Mission of Togo, Liberty and Peace NOW! Human Rights Reporters

Web-Seite: http://1984natalie.wordpress.com

www.radiotvinfo.org

www.johnbaptistmission.org

Here’s the story from Steve McIntyre. (H/T Story from Watts Up With That via ECM)

Excerpt:

“Hide the decline” refers to the decline in the Briffa MXD temperature reconstruction in the last half of the 20th century, a decline that called into question the validity of the tree ring reconstructions. (I’m going to analyze the letters on another occasion.) In the IPCC Third and Fourth Assessment Reports, IPCC “hid the decline” by simply deleting the post-1960 values of the troublesome Briffa reconstruction – an artifice that Gavin Schmidt characterizes as an “a good way to deal with a problem” and tells us that there is “nothing problematic” about such an artifice (see here.

Not only were the post-1960 values of the Briffa reconstruction not shown in the IPCC 2001 report – an artifice that Gavin describes as being “hidden in plain sight”, they were deleted from the archived version of the reconstruction at NOAA here (note: the earlier Briffa 2000 data here does contain a related series through to 1994.)

Here’s the graph, with the decline added back in.

Hide The Decline

Wow, look at that decline that somehow wasn’t included in the graphs made the global warming alarmists. Did they use a trick to hide the decline?

Hide the decline

And here’s a catchy video to help you remember all of this. (H/T Lex Communis)

The scary part is that two of my leftist friends still kept their faith in global warming after this scandal broke. It’s a religion, but one that is diconfirmed by the evidence.

Related posts

• Climate Research Unit servers hacked, e-mails made public
• Comparison of hockey stick graph data to a larger data set in the same area
• Government-funded research unit destroyed original climate data
• The state of the debate about catastrophic man-made global warming
• Peer-reviewed article in journal Science says solar activity impacts climate
• Famous UN IPCC hockey stick graph is based on cherry-picked data
• Princeton physics professor testifies to Senate about global warming
• Global warming advocates refuse to give their data to skeptics
• Peer-reviewed article in journal Science says prior ice melting caused by solar variation
• Oceans are not warming now
• Polar ice caps are not melting now
• Polar bear populations are not decreasing now
• Global warming is not caused by humans

By Nancy Morgan

If a scandal isn’t reported by the media, does that mean it never happened?

For the millions of Americans who don’t watch Fox News or listen to talk radio, the answer is a resounding yes.

Last Friday, November 20, evidence came to light that “appears to show a conspiracy to falsify data and suppress academic debate in order to exaggerate the possible threat of man-made global warming.” Translation: The global warming movement rests almost entirely on the IPCC’s claim to represent the “consensus” of climate science. That entire movement now stands discredited.

In the face of this absolutely shameful and possibly criminal revelation of chicanery, deceit and manipulation of data, the mainstream media has stuck to their decades long policy of ignoring any evidence or opinion that challenges their firm belief that the world is undergoing a climate crisis. A crisis that can only be rectified if all global citizens drastically change their behaviour.

Despite these revelations, the AP’s science writer continued reporting on the worsening climate non-crisis, “Since the 1997 international accord to fight global warming, climate change has worsened and accelerated — beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then.” Scary stuff, if it were true.

CNN chimed in, reporting their own shocking headlines: Sea Level Rise Could Cost Port Cities $28 Trillion. Remember, this ‘news’ story was published after evidence had come to light that credibly challenged the very facts CNN was reporting. Yawn.

Six days after this scandal came to light, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and NBC had yet to make their viewers aware of what is being called “the greatest [scandal] in modern history.” A scandal that could derail the whole concept of man-made global warming. And, coincidently, the $129 billion carbon market that rests on this shaky and manipulated data.

Also ignoring this scandal is our very own president, who announced last Wednesday that he will attend the long-anticipated, high-stakes global climate summit in Copenhagen. Obama’s climate czar, Carol Browner, announced on the very same day that global warming science is “settled.’ No need to even address those pesky e-mails that purport to show differently.

“I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real,” said Ms. Browner. The 2,500 hundred scientists, by the way, are comprised mainly of United Nations bureaucrats who have a vested interest in the massive wealth re-distribution that they suggest as a solution to this non-crisis.

On Thursday, more evidence of climate chicanery came to light – but was again ignored by the media. Gerd Leipold, the outgoing leader of Greenpeace, admitted that his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.” Oops.

Also on Thursday, information surfaced that indicates Australia, also, appears to have been tinkering with raw data in order to make “global warming’ appear scarier that it really is.

Again, no mention was made in the U.S. media. Oh, CNN did finally acknowledged the issue yesterday by reporting that there was “very little context” in the e-mail evidence. CNN declined to publish any of the damning e-mails and they failed to identify any of those ‘leading scientists’ whose work has been shown to be a possible fraud.

Those ‘leading scientists’ then continued with business as usual, issuing another dire proclamation, “Tackling climate change will help prevent millions of deaths among people who are alive now and save the world for future generations.”

These same scientists then responded to the damning evidence to the contrary in the usual way. By attacking and discrediting the motives of the messenger. “We’re facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public,” said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

As of this writing, Fox News is the only national outlet reporting on this scandal. Website WattsUpWithThat and Canada Free Press appear to be the only media investigating the hacked e-mails that seem to show a decades long conspiracy to fudge climate data and squelch any and all opposing data and scientists.

The ‘garbage-in, garbage-out’ climate models the IPCC use as proof of global warming  now appear to be false. Global ‘leaders’ conveniently ignore the burgeoning scandal and continue to insist that unless a massive re-distribution of global wealth is immediately enacted, global warming will threaten every man woman and child on earth.

Americans can disagree on the extent of climate change and even question man’s role in it. The issue at hand however, is the fact that the media, whose job is to report facts, has declined to do so. The media, with Fox News as the only exception, have bought into Dan Rather’s “fake but accurate” view of the so-called ‘global-warming’ crisis.

Father Earth, Algore sums it up best: “This is not a political issue, or a scientific issue or a psychological issue – it’s a moral issue. If anything it’s actually a spiritual issue.” There you have it. If you don’t agree with the unscientific ‘consensus’ than you’re a really stupid, bad and immoral person. The left has spoken and the media agrees. Case closed.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com and she lives in South Carolina.

Read more from Nancy Morgan at Right Bias

The former UK ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock says that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was “of questionable legitimacy”.

Greenstock was speaking on day four of public hearings at a wide-ranging inquiry into the US-led, British-backed Iraq War covering the period from 2001 to 2009.

Jeremy Greenstock said the United States seemed to be “preparing for conflict” despite British efforts to secure consensus following a United Nations resolution in November 2002 giving Saddam Hussein a last warning to disarm, AFP reported.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 in late 2002 gave Iraq a “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” but the council did not ultimately agree to a second resolution clearly authorizing the March 2003 invasion.

This meant the invasion was “legal but of questionable legitimacy, in that it didn’t have the democratically observable backing of the great majority of member states,” Greenstock said in spoken evidence to the Chilcot inquiry.

The first UN resolution, 1441, was “equivocal” on what should happen if Iraq did not comply with international demands and, although Britain tried to resolve some of its ambiguities, this was hindered by the US, Greenstock said.

“The UK’s attempt to reconstitute a consensus had only a slim prospect of success, made slimmer by the recognition by everyone else following events closely that the US was not proactively supportive of the UK’s efforts and seemed to be preparing for conflict whatever the UK decided to do,” Greenstock said in a written statement also submitted to the inquiry on Friday.

His written statement also revealed that Greenstock, Britain’s ambassador to the UN between 1998 and 2003, considered resigning if there was no resolution clearly backing military action.