This is easy… just READ THIS!!

Brief for Monday, November 30, 2009 — The Patriot Post.

Why my sudden change back to the Republican party and why I am vocal about my distaste of the current handling of my government and my future here in the USA or should I say USSA?

I suppose its about time that I explain why I’ve spent so much time on the climate debate and the CRU hack recently. It basically goes down to the fundaments that the whole political and economic discussion is (or should be) built upon, namely freedom, or the lack thereof. I am a firm proponent on getting the government out of any economic business, and any other business as well, besides protwecting our fundamental rights. If something can get my temper going, it is government intrusion over freedom and property rights.

And the climate debate has, unfortunately, become about just that – except that in this regard, the government is relying on an international “consensus” group (the IPCC) as basis for their ongoing and future intrusion in regards to our freedom to emit carbon-dioxide. To avoid misunderstandings – if CO2 constituted a pollutent, then I would consider the necessity for regulating this since emissions of it would (in some instances) be considered intruding on someone elses freedom. CO2 is however not a pollutent – or rather has not been proven to be one.

It all goes down to the classical power-game played by politicians and governments. They hire a group of quasi-intellectuals to give them ideological and moral cover for their actions – to forward an agenda where they make themselves even more important in our everyday lives. Now – I’m not saying that all climate scientists are quasi-intellectuals, there are real scientists on both sides of the isle. The problem is that the ones who get all the government grants, and has all the influence (guess why the government gave it to them, and not to an independent group….), namely the IPCC, are nothing but hired intellectual goons for the politruck elites of Brussels and leftist environmental movements worldwide. They have no scientific integrity, and consider “climate science” the equivalent of a massive game of influense-grabbing.

And thus, the sad fact is that we know more or less NOTHING about the climate, because even the most basic data may have been (or in some instances has been proven to be) corrupted by those interested not in science and knowledge, but in a political agenda. Evidence that the political agenda is more important than the underlying science – or even the consequences of the agenda – are now all around us. From the ousting of dissenters, to the reliance on attacks on personal integrity and scientific strawmen to prove that the globe is warming at an “ever more alarming rate”, when in fact the data supports no such thing. First it was heat, then it became sea-levels, then hurricanes and now earthquakes and god knows what. The straying from the question at hand (namely will further emission of carbon-dioxide cause severly adverse effects on the earths climate, and is it worth trying to stop it) goes further and further to prove that it is important that we act NOW! IMMEDIATELY! OR IT’S TOO LATE. A certain James Hansen has said on multiple occasions through the years that we are a mere months away from not being able to hit the brakes in time to avoid the “tipping point” which has been disproven time and time again.

It is the same tactics of intellectual Blitzkrieg that has been used by quasi-intellectuals again and again throughout modern history. It relies on a large group of useful deluded idiots that like the message for it’s effects, not its cause (the “green agenda” of less production, a “return to nature” and socialist kumbaya-songs). Add to this a state of media-induced panic, government sanctification and the intellectual corruption that has been rotting away many university institutions for decades, and you have the most giant scientific scam in the history of mankind. The problem is not the overall target of this movement (the “green agenda”) rather what it is at risk of causing.

If emission-levels are cut, it will not only send millions after millions of people into poverty, it will give rise to more corruption, moves towards dictatorial control of the actions of individuals (We always affect the nature somehow. Why not control how we affect animal life as well? Or how we spread sound through public places? Or how we should be “bio-diverse in our genetic heritage”, meaning mandatory eugenics? Or any other mad suggestion by evil politrucks using the sanctification of  preserving nature, the climate or any other arbitrary construction that does not contain man.)

Ayn Rand was right – movements like this are not only anti-freedom, they are anti-thought and anti-man as well.

This is why I take the debate seriously.

Studies Claim Cutting Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reduces Diseases. Washington (AP) – Cutting global warming pollution would not only make the planet healthier, it would make people healthier too, newly released studies say. Slashing carbon dioxide emissions could save millions of lives, mostly by reducing preventable deaths from heart and lung diseases, the studies show. They were published in a special issue of The Lancet British medical journal, released Wednesday.

The calculations of lives saved were based on computer models that looked at pollution-caused illnesses in certain cities. The figures are also based on the world making dramatic changes in daily life that may at first seem too hard and costly to do, researchers conceded.

Cutting carbon dioxide emissions would also reduce other types of air pollution, especially tiny particles that lodge in the lungs and cause direct health damage, doctors said. Other benefits could come from encouraging more exercise and less meat consumption, to improve heart health, researchers said.

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.

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 data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Conspiracy theories have become a hallmark of modern life. The modern conspiracy theory probably can be traced back to the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the belief that undiscovered gunmen actually killed the president. Another long lasting conspiracy theory is the belief in a government cover-up of an alien spacecraft’s crash in Roswell, New Mexico. More recently, conspiricists on the left and right have been busy promoting theories that the Bush Administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks or that President Obama’s birth certificate was fake.

From time to time, however, proof of an authentic conspiracy emerges. This was the case with the recent publication of hacked emails from East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit. After years of hearing about climate science being “settled” and that there was a scientific consensus supporting the belief in human-caused global warming, the leaked emails present a very different picture. Ironically, the story has received scant coverage from most media sources in spite of the implications to the upcoming Copenhagen conference and cap-and-trade debate.

The conspiracy was revealed when an unknown hacker penetrated the Climate Research Unit’s computers and forwarded thousands of documents and emails to a server in Russia. Shortly after, a link was posted to the documents along with the message “”We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it” [1].

Global warming skeptics quickly learned that the documents revealed two important things about global warming proponents. First, much of the data that “proved” the reality of global warming was corrupt. As global temperatures flattened or declined in the years after 2000, climate scientists were at a loss to explain the lack of warming. For example, an email from Dr. Kenneth Trenberth, a scientist at the US Center for Atmospheric Research, said “This means we can’t fully comprehend or understand exactly what is going on. We know that it cooled in 2008 but we are not 100 per cent sure why….”[1].

Second, the documents confirmed the belief that there was a widespread conspiracy to discredit dissenting scientists and deny publication of scientific papers that pointed out the flaws in global warming theory. Scientific journals rely on peer review of scientific papers to ensure their validity. The climate conspirators would use their status as article reviewers to prevent scientific journals from publishing articles critical of global warming theory. In one email, Phil Jones of East Anglia University writes of dissenting articles, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow–even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” [4].

In 2003, after a paper questioning the extent of warming in the 20th century was published in the journal Climate Research, Dr. Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, sent emails to his colleagues to boycott the publication: “I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal” [3].

The scientists also discussed ways to mislead opponents. In one discussion of the medieval warm period, a period of extremely warm weather from AD 800-1300 which led to an economic boom, Dr. Trenbarth suggested creating a blog on a neutral web site and then referring inquiries to his own blog [5].

The email trail extended as far as the White House itself. One email was authored by President Obama’s science advisor, Dr. John Holdren. Dr. Holdren had sent an email in 2003 defending Dr. Mann’s research. Dr. Holdren was working at Woods Hole Research Center at the time.

Since many of the scientists who contributed to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report were implicated in the email scandal, the conclusions of the report itself have been cast into further doubt. The inability of climate change scientists to explain the lack of warming also casts global warming and the need for expensive government programs to combat it into doubt. The Environmental Protection Agency has been on the verge of regulating carbon dioxide due to the conclusions of the IPCC report.

Global warming defenders have decried the leak of the emails claiming that not all emails were released; only those that were the most damaging. They do not, however, deny the validity of the emails.

Already, the release of the emails has sparked legal action. In Congress, Republican lawmakers have launched an investigation into the role of the implicated scientists in the formulation of the IPCC report. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has also announced the intention to sue NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies for failure to provide climate-related documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The obvious question is how the revelation of the climate fraud will affect the upcoming climate conference in Copenhagen and President Obama’s attempt to pass a cap-and-trade energy tax in the United States. Hopefully, diplomats and lawmakers will step back and examine the science on both sides of the debate before rushing into climate policies that would be potentially disastrous for the economies of the world.

Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There’s a consensus that it’s going to change, so they’ve decided to keep us in the dark.
-James Taranto

Sources:
A complete database of the emails can be found here: www.eastangliaemails.com
1. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/24/2752337.htm
2. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html
3. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular
4. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574557583017194444.html
5. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=868&filename=1206628118.txt
Secaucus NJ

Conspiracy theories have become a hallmark of modern life. The modern conspiracy theory probably can be traced back to the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the belief that undiscovered gunmen actually killed the president. Another long lasting conspiracy theory is the belief in a government cover-up of an alien spacecraft’s crash in Roswell, New Mexico. More recently, conspiricists on the left and right have been busy promoting theories that the Bush Administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks or that President Obama’s birth certificate was fake.

From time to time, however, proof of an authentic conspiracy emerges. This was the case with the recent publication of hacked emails from East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit. After years of hearing about climate science being “settled” and that there was a scientific consensus supporting the belief in human-caused global warming, the leaked emails present a very different picture. Ironically, the story has received scant coverage from most media sources in spite of the implications to the upcoming Copenhagen conference and cap-and-trade debate.

The conspiracy was revealed when an unknown hacker penetrated the Climate Research Unit’s computers and forwarded thousands of documents and emails to a server in Russia. Shortly after, a link was posted to the documents along with the message “”We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it” [1].

Global warming skeptics quickly learned that the documents revealed two important things about global warming proponents. First, much of the data that “proved” the reality of global warming was corrupt. As global temperatures flattened or declined in the years after 2000, climate scientists were at a loss to explain the lack of warming. For example, an email from Dr. Kenneth Trenberth, a scientist at the US Center for Atmospheric Research, said “This means we can’t fully comprehend or understand exactly what is going on. We know that it cooled in 2008 but we are not 100 per cent sure why….”[1].

Second, the documents confirmed the belief that there was a widespread conspiracy to discredit dissenting scientists and deny publication of scientific papers that pointed out the flaws in global warming theory. Scientific journals rely on peer review of scientific papers to ensure their validity. The climate conspirators would use their status as article reviewers to prevent scientific journals from publishing articles critical of global warming theory. In one email, Phil Jones of East Anglia University writes of dissenting articles, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow–even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” [4].

In 2003, after a paper questioning the extent of warming in the 20th century was published in the journal Climate Research, Dr. Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, sent emails to his colleagues to boycott the publication: “I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal” [3].

The scientists also discussed ways to mislead opponents. In one discussion of the medieval warm period, a period of extremely warm weather from AD 800-1300 which led to an economic boom, Dr. Trenbarth suggested creating a blog on a neutral web site and then referring inquiries to his own blog [5].

The email trail extended as far as the White House itself. One email was authored by President Obama’s science advisor, Dr. John Holdren. Dr. Holdren had sent an email in 2003 defending Dr. Mann’s research. Dr. Holdren was working at Woods Hole Research Center at the time.

Since many of the scientists who contributed to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report were implicated in the email scandal, the conclusions of the report itself have been cast into further doubt. The inability of climate change scientists to explain the lack of warming also casts global warming and the need for expensive government programs to combat it into doubt. The Environmental Protection Agency has been on the verge of regulating carbon dioxide due to the conclusions of the IPCC report.

Global warming defenders have decried the leak of the emails claiming that not all emails were released; only those that were the most damaging. They do not, however, deny the validity of the emails.

Already, the release of the emails has sparked legal action. In Congress, Republican lawmakers have launched an investigation into the role of the implicated scientists in the formulation of the IPCC report. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has also announced the intention to sue NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies for failure to provide climate-related documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The obvious question is how the revelation of the climate fraud will affect the upcoming climate conference in Copenhagen and President Obama’s attempt to pass a cap-and-trade energy tax in the United States. Hopefully, diplomats and lawmakers will step back and examine the science on both sides of the debate before rushing into climate policies that would be potentially disastrous for the economies of the world.

Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There’s a consensus that it’s going to change, so they’ve decided to keep us in the dark.
-James Taranto

Sources:
A complete database of the emails can be found here: www.eastangliaemails.com
1. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/24/2752337.htm
2. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html
3. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular
4. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574557583017194444.html
5. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=868&filename=1206628118.txt
Secaucus NJ

India, China Want West to Take Lead on Global Warming

CLOUDS generated by a single jet aircraft can reduce sunshine levels over thousands of square kilometres, researchers have found…. From The Australian. Full story

This site may contain information about: goa airport. The blog is also related to: international flights.

Another excellent TED Talk by James Balog. This is the shocking truth about the climate change situation right NOW. Wake-up those who are still disputing the scientific evidence and making this a political issue!

James Balog’s latest work, the Extreme Ice Survey, captures the twisting, soaring forms of threatened wild ice.

To see the natural world through James Balog’s lens is to see it as an artist would — through fresh eyes, as if for the first time, with no preconceived notions. His photos of jungle animals, for instance, are arresting in their directness, simplicity, even sensuality. His subjects assume the same weight and importance as a human portrait sitter, and demand (as a human subject would) that the viewer engage with them rather than simply spectate.

His newest work is no less powerful, no less engaging — and it carries an urgent message. For several years, Balog has been going up north to shoot the half-alive ice of the mammoth glaciers for his Extreme Ice Survey, a look at the shocking effects of abrupt climate change in Alaska, Greenland and Iceland. Soaring, dripping, glowing and crumbling, arctic ice under Balog’s eye requires the viewer to engage.

A new Nova/PBS TV special and a new book, Extreme Ice Now, are helping him spread the word that this glorious world is degrading at a speed we couldn’t imagine until we saw it through his eyes.

“Each new series by James Balog represents a quantum leap in creativity, which takes us deeper into the ultimate mystery of humanity’s relationship to the natural world.”

James Nachtwey, photographer and TED Prize winner

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html

Interesting, interesting. Apparently liberal politicians in Australia is getting a real vocal punishment for their support of capping emissions. Not one but several frontbenchers has chosen to step back to avoid getting punished by the electorate.

The sheeple is waking up, and fast. The CRU email hack may have been released too late, we’ll see very soon. What people should remember is that there is no treaty which cannot be revoked, no power that cannot be clawed back. Your personal liberties and sovereignty may be signed away in Copenhagen – but you can take it back. Do yourself the favour of looking 20 years into the future, and realize that the political class is trying to take over your life.

What you failed to realize is that you no longer live in what you image a democracy to be. You are living in a modern-world incarnation of “choose your tyranny”. Power is being centralized in a way that would make Soviet politrucks envious. But as common people are realizing that they soon have no friggin clue what politicians are talking about – why some faceless Brussels bureucrat is suddenly deciding what they should eat, how they should be taxed, what papers they need to fill in to live – resistance is rising. I do not think representative democracy is anything fabulous, for exactly this reason. It is simply a way of organized mob-rule.

But for those of you who use the word democracy as the ideal for the free western world, for those of you who were born in relative freedom and wish to remain so – you may be well served to wake up. There are so many things of which you do not know – the climate scandal just being a sign of the times. We all know that governments are constant failures – and constantly fail to do what they promise. It is the one part of society you can be sure will make your life worse. But if you know this, why are we getting more and more government? Why did 27 people get to vote for the European president, who was created by a constitution that you didn’t get to read, didn’t get refered by your politicians, and didn’t get to vote for? Why is your hard-earned money going into the hands of the faceless elites in Brussels, paying themselves millions a year to sit and decide how to rule your life, take away your freedoms, and increase their own power?

It’s time to wake up, before the era of centralization becomes the era of oppression. And I know that this wasn’t at all what I intended to write, I was simply going to post a link to WUWT Here it is : Australian ETS Vote