By Richard Littlejohn

Last updated at 10:50 AM on 17th June 2011

dailymail.co.uk

At last, some good news for polar bears. The world is about to enter a mini Ice Age. Scientists working for the American Astronomical Society are predicting a significant drop in solar activity over the next decade.

Last time this happened, between 1645 and 1715, global temperatures plummeted and the River Thames froze over every winter.

While climate change alarmists insist we are heading for meltdown, the truth is that the world has actually been getting cooler in recent years.

Although the findings from the National Solar Observatory in New Mexico are bad news for the global warming industry, they are not necessarily good news for the rest of us. Politicians are bound to exploit the new evidence for their own purposes . . .

Britain will lead the world in tackling global cooling, the Prime Minister announced today. Unless we act now, he warned, the planet could soon freeze over.

He was speaking after the emergency United Nations climate change summit at the exclusive Cool Runnings ski resort in Jamaica. A new Global Cooling Bill will be brought before the next session of Parliament, aimed at increasing carbon emissions by 60 per cent.

The Energy Secretary has given the green light to a modern generation of peat-fired power stations and ordered an increase in drilling for North Sea Oil. Fossil fuels are believed to hold the key to reversing the drop in temperatures.

Chilly: We can expect to see more of this weather, expert predicts.

Alternative energy companies will be given billions of pounds in grants to dismantle wind turbines. These will be smelted down and converted into giant mirrors designed to reflect the sun’s rays in an attempt to reopen the hole in the ozone layer.

Thousands of these mirrors will be erected in areas of outstanding natural beauty all over Britain.

Landfill sites will be converted into vast open-air incinerators, operating around the clock in an attempt to maximise carbon output. Town Halls are to introduce twice-daily dustbin collections to provide the raw materials to keep the home fires burning, although this is expected to lead to a 300 per cent increase in council tax.

Households which fail to produce sufficient combustible material will face heavy fines. Anyone using more than one dustbin will go to prison for five years.

Those people who have installed solar panels, double glazing and loft insulation will have to pay higher taxes. This is necessary to recoup all the money spent in the past subsidising the installation of solar panels, double glazing and loft insulation.

It is hoped that by 2025, every home in Britain will be heated by a wood-burning stove.

The Transport Ministry is encouraging people who have brought hybrid vehicles to switch to petrol- and diesel-driven cars. Road tax on electric cars will rise to £5,000 a year.

London’s congestion charge zone will be scrapped, except for bicycles and low-emission vehicles.

Cyclists and drivers of the Toyota Pious will be charged £100 a day to enter the capital. The Mayor said the money raised will go towards a new fleet of motorcycles, powered by two-stroke engines, which will replace the current Boris Bikes.

The Prime Minister praised Lord Prescott, the EU’s special rapporteur on climate change, for setting an example. If we all drove two Jags, global cooling would be reversed within weeks.

The forthcoming high-speed rail link through the Chilterns will coincide with the reintroduction of steam trains throughout the country.

Aslef leaders welcomed the decision and immediately announced plans for a nationwide strike ballot in support of demands for a 30 per cent pay rise, the reintroduction of footplatemen and an end to flexible rostering.

Defence industry sources said Britain’s two new aircraft carriers, due in 2020, will be powered by coal.

A major expansion of air travel is also planned, with a sixth terminal being built at Heathrow at a cost of £100 billion. This will be funded by a new air passenger tax designed to replace the old air passenger tax.

The smoking ban introduced by the last government is to be scrapped. Cigarettes have been shown to make a significant contribution to greenhouse gases. Ministers believe the threat of a new Ice Age far outweighs any minor concerns about public health.

Several new quangos are being established to enforce the new rules, including the Global Cooling Executive, which will employ 5,000 civil servants and will be given sweeping powers to increase carbon emissions.

Local councils have already begun to place adverts in the Guardian for a new army of global cooling advisers on salaries of up to £100,000 a year, plus a gas-guzzling car of their choice.

The Prime Minister has been deeply influenced by Senator Al Gore’s latest film, Ice Station Zebra, about the perils of global cooling. One memorable scene features a lonely zebra shivering to death in Tanzania.

This film will be shown to every schoolchild in Britain over the coming weeks.

If the drop in temperatures continues, there are fears that dangerous species once thought to be extinct could soon reappear.

The spectre of mastedons, woolly mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers wandering the streets of Tunbridge Wells in search of prey is very real, the Prime Minister warned.

He was asked why Britain was rushing ahead in setting tough new targets for increasing carbon emissions, at a time when China  was going nuclear and closing coal-fired power stations at the rate of one a day.

The Prime Minister said the future of the planet was at stake. We owe it to our children not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Related Posts:

• Goldman Sachs Employees Have Donated How Much Money To Mitt Romney?!
• Fear of Repression Spurs Scholars and Activists to Build Alternate Internets
• ‘There is no plan B’: Marines defend $385bn cost of F-35 fighter jet programme
• Homeschool, Anti-vaccine Family Being Destroyed by CPS: Chronology of a Kidnapping
• At least two terrorists behind Norwegian youth camp massacre – witnesses

Masters Of The World Meet To Play God With The Climate

April 17, 2011

Source: Activist Post – Michael Edwards

 

On a secluded estate in England, a small group from the elite UK think-tank, The Royal Society, are openly discussing control over the planet’s weather.  The Orwellian nature of the discussion is stunning, as this select group seemingly wrings their hands over how to delegate the proper authority to research such godlike power.  They begin by asking a rhetorical question, “Who decides?”

In a candid AP story, the entire agenda is laid bare as we are treated to a session that is “generally off the record.”  This is the grand rollout to be sure: from research to implementation, they announce much of what is already provably in the works, as well as the road toward a future of unthinkable control by an inner circle of ideologues with the task to “save the planet.”

History is full of these great “experts” who have taken on the burden of saving the rest of us.  Elites throughout the ages have insisted that the common man or woman is simply not up to the task . . . if left to our own devices, we might just destroy the place.  So, let’s first recap how these elite thinkers have done so far based on the key indicators of human prosperity.

Peace: The “peace process” is apparently a long one.  Since the War To End All Wars, there has been a steady string of significant wars, protracted conflicts, or “kinetic actions.”  The central planners have failed fantastically when it comes to peace, and there is no sign of this trend reversing, as it openly has been announced that a Nobel Peace Prize can be given to the leader of the free world who has extended and declared wars that are unconstitutional and morally reprehensible.  Rather, events are demonstrably leading straight to World War III.  It seems like we would be better off without the humanitarian aid offered by such peaceniks.

Freedom: The Map of Freedom shows most of the global population living under some form of authoritarian control, especially when North America is evaluated honestly.  Just about all of the rest lives under Democracy, which is nothing more than the soft version where two wolves and a sheep meet to decide what is for dinner.  This is the globalist model, which prefers centralized control and a curtailing of individual freedom by mafia or mob rule, resulting in the sucking of all wealth and power toward a top ruling class.  As Louis Brandeis, former Supreme Court Justice said, ”We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”  Countries with a true free market of ideas and commerce are few and far between.

Economy:  The model of centralized elite banking management has been an abject failure.  All central banks in history that have used fiat money — most of which financed both sides of wars — have failed in that they have bankrupted their nations and only have enriched those in control.  The current exposure of the U.S. Federal Reserve is finally reaching a crescendo, but our managers are already a step ahead discussing the endgame of a one-world currency to solve the inadequacies of the past.  I think we have had enough examples of their central planning skills.

Health: Between the EPA, FDA, and USDA — just to cite U.S. agencies — our elite researchers, scientists, and policy makers have been responsible for millions of deaths, conservatively.  And it is only getting worse, as this global health tyranny aims to criminalize the food and supplements that are actually proven to extend our lives.  The key poisons they enable include: mercury, aspartame, MSG, (most) vaccines, and GMO’s; all proven to reduce cognition, bodily health, and life expectancy.

Environment: Fukushima is only the latest in a long history of corporate/government mismanagement with global consequences.  Experts claiming to show the benefits and safety of their advice continuously bombard us.   Yet, our planet has now endured multiple nuclear meltdowns, oil spills, fracking-induced earthquakes, and global fallout from wars using depleted uranium — all of which have contaminated Earth and poisoned future generations beyond imagining.  The only success these elites can document is the mass killing by dictators like Genghis Khan, Mao, Hitler, and Stalin who eliminated a conservative total of over 100 million people, thus reducing CO2.  Well done if you are a nihilist.

With such a track record of desolation for all but the top directors, we had best pay attention to their own words about what direction they have in store for us next.

Most alarming about this semi-clandestine meeting is that the very premise upon which they base this need for global orchestration — Global Warming — has been thoroughly debunked by any climatologist not beholden to a government sponsored think tank or agency.  Their famously cited Plan B for inevitable climate change is nothing more than a wish list for those who wish to de-industrialize productive nations and consolidate control through wealth redistribution.  Not a good way to start saving people.

With lies as the basis for what is to follow, we continue along our Orwellian path set forth by “scientists and scholars” toward a comprehensive new vision for the future which was framed by this elite roundtable normally hidden from public view, but brought to us by the Associated Propaganda news agency:

Provoking and parrying each other over questions never before raised in human history, the conferees were sensitive to how the outside world might react.

Science: “If we could experiment with the atmosphere and literally play God, it’s very tempting to a scientist,” Kenyan earth scientist Richard Odingo.

Well, we can give points for honesty here, but are we really to believe that this “experimentation” has not already begun?  Their own words and observable facts prove otherwise.  The top contender for geoengineering on a planetary scale, according to the panel, is “stratospheric aerosol particles.”  In what sounds a whole lot like tin-foil hat conspiracy Chemtrails, these “particles would be sun-reflecting sulfates spewed into the lower stratosphere from aircraft, balloons or other devices.”  The current evidence for such activity has already been exhaustively documented by researchers and popularized by films such as What In The World Are They Spraying?The panel actually calls this technique Sun Radiation Management (SRM).  The problem with management is that managers are then necessary, and the ones that have been appointed should not be to our liking.

Law: “These scenarios create winners and losers . . . Who is going to decide?” John Shepherd of Britain’s Southhampton University, lead author of a 2009 Royal Society study of geoengineering.

The think tank warns that a “coalition of scientifically capable nations” should set world direction — led of course by the U.S. and Britain, two of the most egregious abusers of the planet — “perhaps inviting China, India, Brazil and others . . . “  But when in doubt just invoke the U.N to convince the masses that, “Many environmentalists categorically oppose intentional fiddling with Earth’s atmosphere, or at least insist that such important decisions rest in the hands of the U.N., since every nation on Earth has a stake in the skies above.”  The United Nations; world police force and repository of incremental global control.

Politics: “One of the challenges is identifying intentions, one of which could be offensive military use.”  — Indian development specialist Arunabha Ghosh referring to weather modification.

If the weather can truly be controlled, then one can surmise that we are entering a future of weather wars.  And, yet, this already has been addressed in key white papers such as Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning The Weather By 2025.  Perhaps the real concern is similar to that of all WMDs — to be sure that only the ruling elite can use them, while anyone who opposes or retaliates is marked with the cattle brand of terrorist.

Philosophy:  “There’s the ‘slippery slope’ view that as soon as you start to do this research, you say it’s OK to think about things you shouldn’t be thinking about.”  — Steve Rayner, co-director of Oxford University’s geoengineering program.

The philosophy of “thinking the unthinkable” always has been trumpeted as a necessary contingency plan to protect the masses from lone nuts and rogue governments when, in reality, it is the justification for what already has been engineered by psychopaths and sociopaths in positions of power within dominant governments and by their think-tank minions.  It is their hatred for the masses and subsequent policies that lead to what normal people call unthinkable scenarios.

Conclusion: “I’m queasy about some billionaire with a messiah complex having a major role in geoengineering research,” — Clive Hamilton, Australian economist-ethicist.

It takes a lot more than a few billion dollars to orchestrate weather control, just as flight-school flunkies with box cutters, or a white supremacist in Oklahoma with a store-bought truck bomb cannot orchestrate large-scale terrorism. For a real messiah complex with money to back it, one needs a government sponsor.  This is misdirection right from the playbook . . . and that should make us queasy.

Naturally, “All discussions lead to the central theme of how to oversee research.”  There it is: more control.  This control is hidden by our overseers in their “worry” that this new capability will lead to a Geoengineering Industrial Complex.  It is a pathetic echo of Eisenhower’s famous speech warning of a Military Industrial Complex.  This is not a worry at all, as we are getting the message straight from The Four Horsemen’s mouth.  These days such worries are not issued as a dire broadcast of the threat to individual liberty; they are sibilant whispers to a mainstream media peddling the message that only the eradication of individual liberty can save us all.  

Related Posts:

• GAZA BIDS FAREWELL TO VITTORIO ARRIGONI AS TRIBUTES CONTINUE TO APPEAR ON HIS BLOG
• Code of Mysterious German Secret Society the ‘Oculist Order’ Cracked Centuries Later
• Ethiopia’s Patriot Act: Terrorism by “Anti-terrorism Law”
• National Archive keeps bulk of 9/11 Commission report sealed
• Rawsome Farm Buying Club Raided Again

Civilization – Niall Ferguson’s brilliant, impeccably right-wing analysis of why it is that the West is going to hell in a handcart just gets better and better. (H/T Phantom Skier)

In the latest episode, he explored how the roots of the Holocaust lay in a dry run genocide carried out by the Germans (who else?) in German South-West Africa (now Namibia) in the 1900s against the Herero and Namaqua natives. Around 80 per cent of the former tribe and 50 per cent of the latter were brutally massacred with many of the survivors sent to concentration camps where their racial characteristics were studied by proto-Dr-Mengeles as part of the fashionable new scientific field popularised by Francis Galton – eugenics.

Ferguson said:

“The important point to note is that 100 years ago, work like Galton’s was at the cutting edge of scientific research. Racism wasn’t some backward-looking reactionary ideology: it was the state of the art and people then believed in it as readily as people today BUY the theory of man-made climate change.”

Obviously if you’re a believer in the Church of Climatism, this will sound like a monstrous slur. But it does also have the virtue of being true. As I note in my really-quite-soon-to-be-published book Watermelons, the values of the eugenics movement and of the modern green movement are closely connected.

Here, for example, is a popular 50s environmentalist called Harrison Brown in a book called The Challenge of Man’s Future (1954), discussing how to make the human species healthier:

“Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs.”

Brown, you’ll have gathered, was a keen eugenicist. Well, fine: so were lots of people back then, despite the setback their junk-science philosophy experienced with the end of Nazi Germany. But the point about Brown is that he was not just some ordinary bloke of no consequence: he was and is revered by many in the modern green movement as a key philosophical guru.

Among his biggest admirers is John Holdren, the green activist who is now President Obama’s Director of the White House Office of Science And Technology Policy, aka his Science Czar.

In 1986, Holdren edited and co-wrote an homage entitled Earth and the Human Future: Essays In Honor of Harrison Brown, in which he claimed:

“Thirty years after Harrison Brown elaborated these positions, it remains difficult to improve on them as a coherent depiction of the perils and challenges we face. Brown’s accomplishment in writing The Challenge of Man’s Future, of course, was not simply the construction of this sweeping schema for understanding the human predicament; more remarkable was (and is) the combination of logic, thoroughness, clarity, and force with which he marshalled data and argumentation on every element of the problem and on their interconnections. It is a book, in short, that should have reshaped permanently the perceptions of all serious analysts….”

As the author of this damning essay on the subject notes, as recently as 2007 Holdren was reiterating his admiration for Harrison Brown’s noxious views.

Holdren, let it not be forgotten, is also the author of this chilling paragraph, from a book he wrote in 1973 with fellow neo-Malthusian doom-mongers Anne Ehrlich and Paul Ehrlich, called Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions:

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. . . . Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries. This effort must be largely political”

So thank you, Niall Ferguson, for totally getting it. The sooner sufficiently large numbers of people aware that, for all its fluffy pretensions, the green movement is rooted in pessimism, grotesque misanthropy and rabid anti-capitalism, the sooner we’ll be able to consign it to the dustbin of history next to all those other bad ideas that seemed so good to so many idiots at the time. Eugenics, for example.

Related Posts:

• US orders media silence over Bahrain
• Ethiopia’s Patriot Act: Terrorism by “Anti-terrorism Law”
• PHOTO ESSAY ~~ NEW YORKERS STAND WITH GAZA
• Britain: Police Break Into Homes; Lecture People About Burglary Risks
• Private Prisons Love Mass Incarceration, And Want Politicians To Love It Too

In a case that began in federal court in San Francisco, three environmental groups say the U.S. Interior Department should change the bears’ status from “threatened” to “endangered” because of the dire situation created by melting Arctic sea ice.

The planet’s 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears hunt seals, their main food, from sea ice.

“Polar bears are endangered because of global warming,” said Kassie Siegel, a lawyer with the Center for Biological Diversity. “They are starving and dying right now as the Arctic ice melts.”

“The endangered listing would acknowledge the urgency of the situation and give the bears the full protection of the law,” Siegel said Thursday from the center’s office in Joshua Tree in San Bernardino County.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is scheduled to hear arguments in his Washington, D.C., courtroom in February on the environmental groups’ bid to have the listing changed.

An endangered listing could open the door to measures aimed at reducing global warming, although any such actions would be the subject of additional arguments and court hearings.

The state of Alaska and several hunting and business groups maintain, meanwhile, that the polar bear doesn’t need even a “threatened” listing and are asking Sullivan to remove it.

And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service claims the threatened status is correct and wants the judge to keep it in place.

“The service arrived at the 2008 decision to list the polar bear as ‘threatened’ following careful analysis of the best scientific information, as required by the Endangered Species Act,” Acting FWS Director Rowan Gould said Thursday.

“We…are confident it was and is the appropriate status,” Gould said.

The wildlife service is part of the Interior Department and is the agency that decides on species listings.

The case grew out of a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco in 2005 by the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

That lawsuit, assigned to U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland, sought to have the wildlife service give the polar bear some kind of protective listing. After Wilken ordered the agency to take action, it designated the polar bear as threatened in May 2008.

In a second lawsuit filed in Wilken’s court in 2008, the three groups sought to have the status changed to endangered, arguing that the situation had worsened because of the acceleration of ice melting.

The case was transferred to Sullivan’s court in Washington, D.C., to be consolidated with four other lawsuits in which Alaska and the hunting and business groups challenged the “threatened” listing.

Threatened and endangered listings both result in a ban on “taking,” defined as killing, harming or harassing, the animals.

But in cases of threatened species, the Endangered Species Act allows the Interior secretary to make exceptions to the “takings” ban.

During the Bush administration, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne issued an exception exempting any harmful actions that take place outside the bear’s Arctic habitat.

Siegel said the rule has the effect of preventing any polar-bear-protecting regulations that would limit creation of greenhouse gases or toxic chemicals, such as mercury, within the lower 48 states.

In the Obama administration, Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar chose to keep the rule, saying he believes the department should “wisely implement the current rule” while monitoring its effectiveness.

Siegel said that if the polar bears’ status is upgraded to endangered, the exemption would automatically be eliminated.

If Sullivan leaves the “threatened” listing in place, the environmental groups will argue at another hearing in April that the exemption violates the Endangered Species Act.

“There’s no reason to exempt greenhouse gases,” Siegel said.

The groups wrote in a brief, “The single overwhelming factor driving polar bears towards extinction is the decline of Arctic sea ice brought by global warming.”

The rule “has thus reduced protections for the polar bear from the very threat that most imperils the species,” the groups argued.

Several of the groups that filed lawsuits challenging any listing for polar bears have argued that polar-bear-related regulation of greenhouse gases would unfairly hurt their businesses.

One such lawsuit was filed by the California Cattlemen’s Association and the Congress of Racial Equality, known as CORE.

The association told Sullivan in a filing that polar bear protection increases ranchers’ chances of being sued by citizens “who claim that the production of animal protein significantly contributes to climate change.”

CORE said in the same filing that minority-owned businesses that emit greenhouse gases would be injured by “regulatory burdens, additional costs and increased liability.”

The Interior Department contends that regulation of greenhouse gases would not be in the purview of the Endangered Species Act even if the exemption in question were eliminated.

In a statement on its website, the department says, “It is currently not possible to directly link the emission of greenhouse gases from a specific power plant, etc. to effects on specific bears or bear populations.”

But the statement acknowledges, “As a more general matter, the department recognizes that climate change impacts associated with global warming are impacting the polar bear and other species.”

Julia Cheever, Bay City News

Want more news, sent to your inbox every day? Then how about subscribing to our email newsletter? Here’s why we think you should. Come on, give it a try.

Related Posts:

• U.S. Sues to Stop AT&T Deal – A Surprisingly Swift Move or Disinformation?
• Rachel Corrie trial resumes
• Commerce Dept. Forbids Biologists from Releasing Data Regarding Gulf Dolphin Deaths
• Radiation tests begin throughout US airports
• Contractor deaths surpass U.S. military losses in both Iraq and Afghanistan Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Wednesday, February 9, 2011 – 11:37 AM Share

Source: Hindustan Times

Nobel Peace Prize winner and champion climate campaigner Al Gore outlined the doom the world is awaiting because of climate change and expressed disappointment at world leaders failing to clinch a treaty to fight the new global terror. Terming the logjam in climate negotiations as a “startling paradox”, the man, whose documentary, The Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar said the year 2010 had seen worst of climate change.

“There was severe drought in Russia and extreme flooding in Pakistan. What more evidence is required for action,” he said at HT Leadership Summit.

His worst fear was that after failure of Copenhagen climate summit the talks where heading towards another “zombie” like the Doha process on World Trade Organisation negotiations. Gore’s solution for the problem was taking the issue back to the grassroots and creating a political storm to compel the leaders to react to climate change.

Read entire article

Related Posts:

• Study: Wars could cost $4 trillion to $6 trillion
• Profit Ties between Phony Terror Alerts, Airport Security and L-3 Communications
• Bloomberg Calls for Carbon Tax as a Way to Fight Terrorists
• Red alert over bizarre North Korean plan to attack G20 summit with balloons filled chemical weapons
• John Boehner Says In Order To Pay For The Wars, We Need To Raise The Social Security Retirement Age To 70

States of Emergency

By Cassandra Anderson
October 21, 2010

Thirty-two states are on the path to UN-inspired carbon reduction, Cap-and-Trade schemes and unconstitutional alliances; the supporting Governors must be held accountable.  Carbon reduction and population reduction go hand in hand.  The United Nations failed to impose their treaties from the top down (the Kyoto and Copenhagen Accords) and the federal government has abandoned its unpopular national Cap-and-Trade scheme for now.  Cap-and-Trade is being pursued on the state level, and one region has even raised over $700 million in carbon auctions.

The thirty-two states have been divided into three regions; regionalism is a trick that uses re-zoning to establish new jurisdictional authority.  State compacts and agreements, in addition to state treaties with foreign governments, are unconstitutional.  While these regional programs have avoided mention of United Nations Agenda 21, the blueprint for depopulation total control, evidence supports that this is an Agenda 21 Sustainable Development program for the following reasons:

•  Man made global warming deception, based on discredited science from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC), is a primary excuse used to implement Agenda 21 Sustainable Development.

•  California’s AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act  is committed to achieving the targets of the UN Kyoto Protocol (a treaty with mandatory rules to limit carbon).

• RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative of the Northeastern states) is similar to the UN Kyoto treaty with mandated regulations and a Cap-and-Trade scheme.

THE SCIENCE

Because global warming has been discredited, it is now referred to as climate change, climate disruption and the greenhouse effect.

Many people may not realize that water vapor (H2O) accounts for 97% of all greenhouse gases and human activity contributes only a fraction of 1% to greenhouse gas emissions.  Yet there is alarmism over how much carbon humans emit.  Temperature drives CO2 levels.  If it was beneficial to reduce carbon, limiting human carbon emissions would have no effect because human carbon emissions are so minuscule.  Other gases like methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, etc. are not major greenhouse gases.

According to Dr. Michael Coffman, and over 30,000 other scientists, carbon dioxide (CO2) is essential for life on Earth.  All plants must have it to produce food for themselves.  At the current atmospheric concentrations, CO2 is limiting to plant growth.  Currently, CO2 levels are about 387 ppm, and even if the levels increased by 500%, it would benefit agriculture and the Earth’s atmosphere without any harm to humans or other animal life.  The consensus that CO2 is harmful and that the science is “settled” is false.

Despite the fact that water vapor causes the overwhelming amount of greenhouse gas, the EPA failed to list it as a greenhouse gas in its ‘Endangerment Finding’, most likely because people would then understand that water, like carbon, is harmless and would reject the idea that CO2 is a threat to public health and welfare.   The objective of controlling greenhouse gases is to implement political policies, like the EPA’s 18,000 page document with carbon reduction codes that also include a Cap-and-Trade scheme.   This is another example of how the UN has used a governmental body to impose its schemes.

THE STATES

There are 23 states that are partnered within 3 regions, with the goal of reducing human carbon emissions that can cause economic devastation.  There are 9 additional states that are “observers” to these regional alliances, which means that they have taken some steps toward joining. The Governors of these 32 states seem to have been duped by discredited UN global warming “science”, or they fear standing up against the regional alliances,  or they are globalists.  Most of these Governors’ seats are open in the upcoming November 2nd elections.  If the current Governors refuse to remove their States from these alliances, they can be voted out of office.

The regional alliances and their programs are outlined below:

REGIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INITIATIVE (RGGI)

The ten participating states in RGGI’s Northeastern region are: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.  RGGI’s Cap-and-Trade auction began selling carbon allowances in 2008 and has amassed $729 million in sales for the RGGI program.  In March of 2009, RGGI carbon allowances hit a peak of $3.51 per ton; the latest auction in September 2010 saw prices drop to $1.86 per ton- the market seems to be responding to the unravelling of global warming deception.  Incidentally, the market for Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) shares crashed; CCX price per share peaked in 2008 at over $7, but CCX is now trading at 5-10 cents per share.

RGGI has mandatory regulations to cap and reduce CO2 emissions by 10% from the power sector (electricity) by 2018.  Each state that adopted RGGI was required to adopt a rule through legislation or regulation, thereby making it mandatory and enforceable.  RGGI is now targeting vehicle emissions, based on the California model.  People who are familiar with UN Agenda 21 Sustainable Development understand that its goal is total control by way of deindustrialization, economic destruction, centralization of power and limiting travel.

Pennsylvania, a coal rich state, is an “observer” to RGGI, which means that it has taken steps toward joining RGGI.  Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario are also observers.  It is unconstitutional for States to make treaties with foreign governments (Article 1, Section 10).

Several Northeastern state governors did object to joining RGGI but later capitulated, or they were replaced by governors who did sign onto RGGI, or they joined due to pressure and direction by state legislators.  When Mitt Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts, he opposed RGGI on the basis of a lack of opt-out provisions if energy prices rose beyond a certain level.

WESTERN CLIMATE INITIATIVE (WCI)

The following five governors instituted the Western Climate Initiative: Napolitano of Arizona (she is now US Secretary of Homeland Security), Schwarzenegger of California, Richardson of New Mexico, Kulongoski of Oregon and Gregoire of Washington State.  Since that time,  Montana and Utah have joined as states participating in this agreement.

Observer states include Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada and Wyoming.

The foreign states that have joined the WCI are: British Colombia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. Again, it is unconstitutional for States to enter into treaties with foreign governments.

California is the model for tyrannical regulations planned for other states to follow.  California State passed the Global Warming Solution Act (AB 32) in 2006, so it is ready for implementation.  However, because so many people understand that it is a “job killer” that could cost California over one million jobs, a bill to suspend it is on the November ballot (YES on Proposition 23 will suspend the Cap-and-Trade law).

In addition to power plants targeted in this control program, transportation is also marked.  California has a law that has not yet been implemented, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), which will raise taxes in order to re-zone land usage and transportation patterns.  SB 375 proposes that individuals be monitored to track how many miles they travel in their cars and through which regions they travel.  A toll charge is planned for crossing through regions, toll roads are planned and extra car registration taxes are suggested.  The intent of SB 375 is to expand “natural lands” which would be unpaved and uninhabited.  They acknowledge that they will have to get local governments to “buy into” their plans for implemntation, so their tactics may include more propaganda and financial incentives to local governments.

Arizona State passed a law barring the state government from adopting a regional Cap-and-Trade program without legislative approval. Utah also passed a law barring a Cap-and-Trade scheme in their state and Governor Herbert of Utah was urged by State Legislators to pull out of the WCI altogether, but he did not.

Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington State is involved in a lawsuit for unconstitutionally issuing an Executive Order to implement climate change measures that were rejected by the Washington State Legislature.

According to an article from the American Spectator, Idaho Governor Butch Otter appears to support carbon reduction in the marketplace (Cap-and-Trade) and the WCI, even though Idaho is not yet a member.

Click here for the WCI action plans for each member State and Province.

MIDWEST GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION ACCORD (MGGRA)

The Governors of the six full participant states: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin, along with Manitoba, established this accord several years ago with funding from these tax exempt globalist organizations: the Joyce Foundation (contributor to creating the CCX), The McKnight Foundation (funding of energy market manipulation) and the Kresge Foundation.  Observer states include Indiana, Ohio and South Dakota; Ontario is an observer as well.

The Midwest has intensive manufacturing and agricultural sectors making is the most coal dependent region in North America.  MGGRA’s website claims that renewable energy presents a great opportunity for the region, but renewable energy is inefficient.  MGGRA is focused on changing and influencing federal policy and receiving federal funding to combat discredited man made global warming, and is used as a vehicle to implement Cap-and-Trade and other restrictive policies.

TREATIES

The definitions of an Initiative are: (1) the right to initiate legislative action and (2) a procedure enabling the proposal of a law to the electorate or legislature through petition by voters or legislators.

The definition of an Accord is: a formal act of agreement- a treaty.

Please refer to the article “UN Tricks and Treaties” for a more detailed explanation of the treaties that are being implemented by the States.

CARBON OFFSETS

The money to be collected from the WCI Cap-and-Trade program is to be used for establishing renewable energy, which is inefficient.  The documents for SB 375 (that re-zones land usage and transportation patterns) indicate that Cap-and-Trade proceeds could help to fund the restrictive regulations of SB 375.  The American Carbon Registry, slated to manage the the funds merged with Winrock International.  Winthrop Rockefeller (former Governor of Arkansas) seems to be the key founding member of this organization (click here to see a list of the current funding partners that include agencies of the US government).  There was no response to our e-mail and telephone request for an explanation of how Winrock would allocate the money collected from the Cap-and-Trade program.

SOLUTIONS

There are 37 Governors’ seats available in the upcoming November election.  The Governor of each of the 32 states that is a member or observer of any of the regional alliances must be pressured to opt out of the unconstitutional alliances or replaced with a candidate who will opt out of the alliance (all but 5 allied states’ governors seats are available in the November elections).

You can forward this article to your candidate and ask them if they support these unconstitutional alliances and the global warming myths.

State Legislators are also critical office holders, so it is important to discover their position on this matter before the elections.

Please visit www. MorphCity.com for more information on Agenda 21 and to read the companion article about energy “UN Tricks and Treaties”.

Thanks to Dr. Michael Coffman for his meticulous research.  The water vapor video clip was taken from his documentary “Global Warming or Global Governance” which can be purchased by clicking here.  His latest achievement is the book “Rescuing a Broken America” that details how America can return to the Constitution.

Related Posts:

• $700,000 U.S. Department of Agriculture grant to study cow burps . . . and more
• New hologram technology brings 3-D to life
• Rising Prison Population Is ‘Good News’ for Stocks
• The Global Monetary System in Crisis
• San Francisco Considers Ban Of McDonald’s Happy Meal Toys

• October 18th, 2010 11:49 am PT

//

Greg Brophy, Tancredo’s pick for CO enviro post, supports job-killing global warming law

Photo: CO State Leg.

Related Posts:

• Obama, Republicans Prepare for Joint Assault on American Workers
• Girls now reaching puberty at age nine, thanks to chemicals in the food supply
• NYPD Holds College Student in Jail for Three Days Because She Wasn’t Carrying ID
• What’s the CIA doing at NYPD? Depends whom you ask
• Syria seizes Israeli weapons

By Michael Vail - BlackListedNews.com

The National Intelligence Council and the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies jointly released a document on global governance. It is difficult to determine the economic and political future climate of one nation but to attempt to do so for the world is a task. Worse yet, to add more complex variables to the equation such as NGOs and international organizations. These groups are the primary drivers for globalization and international order. These Non-governmental organizations write the policy papers and steer debate on subjects like adopting a global tax. The leaders and statesmen of our respective countries are becoming symbolic window dressing while the real debate is going on without our knowledge.

The United States’ National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) have joined forces to produce this assessment of the long-term prospects for global governance frameworks. This exercise builds on the experience of the two institutions in identifying the key trends shaping the future international system

The EUISS produced the first EU-level report on the factors affecting the evolution of the international system in 2006, The New Global Puzzle. What World for the EU in 2025? The report stressed that a multipolar system is emerging and that matching the new distribution of power with new rules and institutions will be critical to preserving international peace and stability.In our world nothing remains the same. America has been the global thug on the block for far too long. Our problems have come home to roost as the thugs have decided to push their own people around. The erosion of liberties and the tense atmosphere of a police state leaves us all at a loss.  The western powers have reaped the benefits in their game of risk and conquest. This can be called nothing less than rape on a global scale. Whether it is declaring war on nations with resources, loansharking, sweetheart so-called ‘free trade’ treaties, or rampant exploitation of poorer nations.

Another cluster of problems—the management of energy, food, and water resources—appears particularly unlikely to be effectively tackled without major governance innovations. Individual international agencies respond to discrete cases, particularly humanitarian emergencies in individual countries. However, no overall framework exists to manage the interrelated problems of food, water and energy.

Achieving a fair and equitable distribution of burdens and responsibility probably will become more contentious in the foreseeable future, according to many participants. Because some major emerging powers (China and India) are relatively poor countries in per capita terms, diverse domestic priorities generate different assessments of fairness and equanimity. This is already apparent in negotiations between developed and developing countries over climate change and trade.

Globalization is not without its share of problems, many up and coming nations such as China and India are demanding more involvement, more voting power and a larger role in international affairs. If there are such demands on the table at the UN, IMF, WTO or the World Bank meetings then who is redistributing the wealth and power. Who are the winners and losers in globalization? There is no doubt that there will be an international resource management organization and a UN rapid reaction force established. Will these groups decide how much energy you can consume or how many soldiers are needed for conflict resolution? Global governance ultimately means decisions are made by internal consensus and enforced by delegated organizations at every level.

The term “global governance” as used in this paper includes all the institutions, regimes, processes, partnerships, and networks that contribute to collective action and problem solving at the international level. This definition subsumes formal and informal arrangements as well as the role of non-state actors in transnational settings.

Sovereignty is alive and kicking, according to many of the experts we encountered. The way the renewed emphasis on sovereignty will unfold in the next decade will have serious implications for global governance. The extent to which power should be delegated to international bodies and for what purposes will be debated. The question of whether and, if so, under what conditions the international community or international institutions can challenge or override the authority of a state in its internal affairs will also come to the fore.

Global Governance is far from perfect. It promises much but has delivered little. The rising tide was supposed to bring all of the developing nations up with it. Some said that the idea of a third world country was at an end. China has been steadily growing in economic power due to their vast slave labor force and lack of corporate taxes which has been recently rectified. Global Governance is far from a fair system as some rules can be broken if you are a ‘favored nations’. So as this new structure is created will America get her comeuppance? Absolutely, if the International Criminal Court has anything to do with it.

What worries me is that you see a more chaotic world and less capable US. There are centrifugal forces pulling apart the nations of the world… Resource constraints will have huge implications for global society… The trainwreck is right ahead of us…” US Think Tank Participant

“Some think we have the perfect storm of climate change, resource scarcity, and economic growth that carries with it changing lifestyles and greater resource consumption…” Senior Research Fellow, EU Institute for Security Studies

The polar shift is taking place, every country on earth is going through some metamorphosis. One aspect of globalization that I really appreciate is the learning and acceptance of other cultures. The internet connects us all and we have much to learn about each other. There are different strokes for different folks. How can this global governance create rules and laws for the world when we are all unique? Ramming that square peg into a round hole will never produce anything worthy of admiration. These ‘wizards’ of global governance hide behind the curtain for a reason, they could never have succeeded in their efforts under the light of scrutiny and in an open forum.

–
Michael Vail
Veritas Odium Parit – The Truth Will Offend You
mike@vantagepointradio.com
www.vantagepointradio.com

Related Posts:

• Google Will Pay People to Authoritatively Root Themselves: Track 100% of Web Usage Via Dedicated Hardware
• According To A New DHS Report, If You Love “Individual Liberty” Of If You “Believe In Conspiracy Theories” You Are A Potential Terrorist
• Mexico arrests figure in Fast and Furious gun-smuggling scandal
• Bold Alligator: Massive 11-Nation Military Drill Aimed At Fending Off Iran In The Straits of Hormuz
• Marines ‘assault’ US beaches in amphibious drill

Headline today (August 8, 2010) [Notice the word "apparently" in the title]

Matt Simmons “apparently” drowned at his home Sunday night

NORTH HAVEN, Maine (NEWS CENTER) – The Knox County Sheriff’s Department says Matthew Simmons, the founder of the Ocean Energy Institute, drowned at his house on North Haven late Sunday night.

Simmons was a leading investment banker for the energy industry and had recently retired to work full time on the new Ocean Energy Institute.

He was a leading proponent of offshore wind power and had started raising money to develop and build offshore turbines.

The news release fails to mention Simmons was the leading proponent of sending a small nuclear bomb down the BP leaking well:

May 29 – Simmons, a “prominent energy expert” and investment banker known for predicting the oil price spike of 2008, tells Bloomberg News on Friday, sending a small nuclear bomb down the leaking well is “probably the only thing we can do” to stop the leak.

I have been working with Dr. Tom Termotto, the National Coordinator of the Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference to ensure that the BP oil spill didn’t become “A radioactive oil spill.”

Below is an expose on Matt Simmons, which was ready for publication when the BP well was finally capped without resorting to a nuclear device.

The material was useful to Dr. Tom Termotto when he was interviewed on Rense Radio July 19 just four days before the BP well was finally capped.

Jeff Rense’ first question was, if Dr. Termotto would consider Matt Simmon’s nuclear option to cap the well? Tom immediately interjected and made it clear that we should never, never ever consider a nuclear option to cap the well, and went on to relentlessly discredit Matt Simmons throughout the interview.

Here is the expose provided to Dr. Termotto:

The Well is Capped, So why is Matt Simmons Still in this Picture?

By Katherine Smith

“The cap on the BP horizon well bore, which on July 15 stopped the crude for the first time since the April 20 explosion unleashed the spill is still holding and the media is reporting the public beach at Gulf Shores, Alabama, had its busiest day in weeks on Saturday [despite oil-stained sand and a dark line of tar balls left by high tide].”

Should we celebrate?

No, not while Matt Simmons is still in the picture.

Something is Wrong Here

A few days ago you couldn’t go to a Gulf Coast beach without getting arrested for a Class D felony and fined $40,000 but today you can go fishing on the pier beside the Grand Isle Bridge and throw a Frisbee on the beach.

We may never know the real story behind the blow out on April 20^th that killed 11 people and created an environmental disaster for the U.S. Gulf Coast region. [1] However, it doesn’t matter because as long as Matt Simmons insists that “the only possible solution to capping the well is a small diameter low level nuclear device” we need to remain on guard (vigilant) to ensure that the BP oil spill doesn’t become “A radioactive oil spill.”

Matthew R. Simmons Recent Titles

Prior to May of 2010 –Chairman of Simmons & Company International, the company he founded in 1974.

May 29 – Simmons, a “prominent energy expert” and investment banker known for predicting the oil price spike of 2008, tells Bloomberg News on Friday, sending a small nuclear bomb down the leaking well is “probably the only thing we can do” to stop the leak.

June 21 – Abruptly Retires as Chairman Emeritus of Simmons & Company
International [2]
July 18 – Founder of the Ocean Energy Institute

Matt the “expert” told Ian Masters on KPFK’s Daily Briefing and King World News July 16 that nuking the well is “totally safe” because he is attributing the idea to “all the best scientists” and that we should try it because the Russians did it five times.

Komsomoloskaya Pravda suggested that the United States might as well take a chance with a nuke, based on the historical 20-percent failure rate. Still, the Soviet experience with nuking underground gas wells could prove easier in retrospect than trying to seal the Gulf of Mexico’s oil well disaster that’s taking place 5,000 feet below the surface.

The Russians were using nukes to extinguish gas well fires in natural gas fields, not sealing oil wells gushing liquid, so there are big differences, and this method has never been tested in such conditions, not to mention the risks when dealing with radiation.

Contrary to Matt Simmons’ assertion that he is attributing this idea to “all the best scientists”, the scores of scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and other government labs ridicule the nuke option.

In theory, the nuclear option seems attractive because the extreme heat might create a tough seal. An exploding atom bomb generates temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun and, detonated underground, can turn acres of porous rock into a glassy plug, much like a huge stopper in a leaky bottle.

Kevin Roark, a spokesman for Los Alamos in New Mexico, the birthplace of the atomic bomb, said that despite rumors to the contrary, none of the laboratory’s thousands of experts was devising nuclear options for the gulf.

“Nothing of the sort is going on here,” he said in an interview. “In fact, we’re not working on any intervention ideas at all. We’re providing diagnostics and other support but nothing on the intervention side.”

A senior Los Alamos scientist, speaking on the condition of anonymity because his comments were unauthorized, ridiculed the idea of using a nuclear blast to solve the crisis in the gulf.

“It’s not going to happen,” he said. “Technically, it would be exploring new ground in the midst of a disaster — and you might make it worse.”

President Barack Obama Wants to Kill the Well

Our current president is still making cryptic remarks about this disaster. [3]

On July 16 President Obama called the apparent success of BP’s efforts to cap well good news but underscored the problem would not be resolved until relief wells had been completed and

“We won’t be done until we actually know that we killed the well and that we have a permanent solution in place.”

Relief Wells Won’t Work

Matt Simmons tells Ian Masters (and he is correct) that technically without casing a relief well cannot work, “it’s just a technical fact.”

Ian replies: “Lets look ahead a few weeks for now and we just discount the possibility that the relief well which they will announce in a few weeks has struck, and is not going to work, at what point. “

Simmons Interrupts: “it will be only the 45^th announcement that something was going to work…and didn’t. The only possible solution is a small diameter low-level nuclear device. They insert it down the well 18,000 feet, and set it off. It will fuse the rock and glass, and it’s totally safe, three miles under the seabed.”[KPFK’s Daily Briefing ]

No, that isn’t the only possible solution just ask Dr. Tom Termotto, National Coordinator for the Gulf Oil Spill Remediation website.

Simmons the former energy advisor to the President with the worst environmental record in history shouldn’t make such irresponsible statements. [5]

Fortunately Lisa Margonelli (Oil on the Brain) follows Simmons and his nightmare scenario,

“here is the really scary thing, if we basically have a storm let alone a hurricane, what the hurricanes do is the churn up all the cold water from the base of the Gulf of Mexico. This time around it’s not going to be cold water it’s going to be this black poisonous crude and, and it will also shut down their 18 power plants along the gulf coast that will have shut down and create a black out and we’ll have to shut down the refineries so we’ll have trapped 20 million people in harms way.”

When Ian Masters asked for her reaction to the Simmons doomsday scenario, she replies:

“There is a lot we don’t know…some of the things that he says… gosh there is just a lot we don’t know. First of all we need to step back from this nightmare scenario and look at what we know… We have an overwhelming disaster that has changed the whole eco-system of the Gulf which is North Americas most important fishing ground, in the world.. and 40% of our wetlands.

So then to move on to some of the specific points. Let’s just back up.. one thing that I would caution about this sort of information is that I have found people commenting on Mathew’s comments and what he has been saying since May 26^th, so this is not the first time he said it.

He told Barons that he hosted Susan Collins and Stephen Chu on June 14^th, so he would have been able to talk to them. There is no higher person than Stephen Chu to talk to about this. So this is not the first time he has been saying this stuff. He says he has also been talking to people from Noah, and that is a full month ago.

So presumably those scientists should have felt there was open and enough space to come forward with this, umm, that doesn’t mean that what’s going on down there is something that is easily under control.. I don’t know whether he… I don’t know where he gets his information… we can’t track it down.

Given that he spoke to them more than a month ago, in theory more articles would have shown up. I am not saying some of this isn’t true, I am saying the conspiracy of this doesn’t work out. And there is a lot we just don’t know.”

She finally concludes talking about Boots and Coots, experts in which drill relief wells.

I will say there is an article in Barons… I will say that I have talked to… I will say there is an article in Barons that people may want to read more about from a month ago about him (simmons) talking about the hole… and uh.. I will also say I have spoken with various Oil executives who have been involved in drilling in the Gulf and um who have said and assumed that one way or the other the Relief well will WORK. It may not work on the first try and it may take several months, um but one or the other they expect to be able to get it to work. Uh you know everything in this whole accident has been so completely beyond what people conceived of before it’s totally possible that something else will happen. We don’t know.

Never Again (September 2008)

We must not allow our frustration with any of BP’s failed attempts to manipulate us into giving the green light for a Nuclear option to cap the well.

This reminds me of September 2008, when the American people against all logic, (according to the EIA) agreed to drill for oil in the ANWR because they couldn’t tolerate $4.55 a gallon gasoline. [Appendix B]

NPR reports (date):

“This scares everybody — the fact that we cannot make this well stop flowing,” Suttles and BP CEO and chief spinmeister Tony Hayward is lowering expectations. This mess is officially out of control.

One listener called in with a “suggestion”

“The environmental effects of all this oil spewing out are pretty bad,” he says. “Could it be that worse if we knew that a small bomb would plug the hole? I say explode it.”

On CNN, reporter John Roberts suggested last month, “Drill a hole, drop a nuke in and seal up the well.”

There are solutions to this crisis, but inexplicably our elected officials are not listening, and I am concerned that when our frustration reaches a critical threshold (as it did in September 08, See Appendix B) we will demand they do something… anything… and that will give them an excuse to nuke the well.

Let’s not fall for this ruse a second time. Appendix C has the information for you to send a message to everyone you know to raise awareness about this very important issue.

Drilling offshore & in the ANWR, are there benefits? (reprinted below) is my attempt at humor and an explanation of why Matt Simmons was able to predict the oil price spike of 2008.

Don’t let him con us into turning an oil spill into a “A radioactive oil spill.”

Katherine Smith, PhD mandrell2010@gmail.com

Drilling offshore & in the ANWR, are there benefits?

Why did President Bush and his buddies want to drill, drill, and drill (in 2008)? Hot, Flat Friedman wonders, “what planet are they on?” Vote for the best explanation or post your own in comments.

President Bush was concerned about American families,

The President cites tough times for families in urging lawmakers to allow a vote on the bill to open ocean drilling: “American drivers are counting on Congress to lift the ban and so are American workers.” Bush said that high gas prices are cutting into consumers’ food and housing budgets. “The time for action is now, this is a difficult period for millions of American families,” July 30, 2008 [Gasoline $4.32, Oil $122.46]

Psychological affect on speculators

Even though the drilling would not produce results, “It Would Help America Now!”

Oil prices are high now because of the speculators. From a psychological point of view, if news came out that we were going to open up offshore drilling or even ANWR, prices would start to drop because the speculators would have to start selling off their position because they would know the prices wouldn’t be able to go much higher. I think we would start to see a decrease within weeks of an announcement.

Psychological affect on Bush’s buddies

So, the thinking goes if we relax federal prohibitions against drilling offshore and in the ANWR, knowledge of this fact will cause Bush’s Oil buddies to change their pumping decisions today. Though the additional barrels from ANWR wouldn’t physically hit the market for years, it will lead to immediate relief at the pump. Beyond that, the ideal solution would be to completely privatize federal lands.

SWW

The members of a club were getting bored and thought it would be interesting to see how high the price of gasoline would have to go to get Americans to give up their last Arctic wilderness, a 1.5 million-acre habitat for seabirds, caribou, and polar bears. The winning ticket had $4.79 a gallon. In 1973 (the Oil Embargo) the same members of the club had a bet to see if long gas lines would get the public to agree to the Alaskan Pipeline, Within weeks of the Arab oil embargo, President Nixon signed into law the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, which authorized the completion of 800 miles of pipeline through the frozen passes of the Brooks Range, and through some of the most pristine country in North.

[Today they are betting on how many times they have to fail to cap the well]

Local control and Jobs in Alaska

Governor Palin stressed the need (in 2008) to enact an energy policy that includes oil and gas production from domestic sources, since failure to enact a sound energy policy is having real-life consequences. Alaskan residents pay higher prices for their gas than residents in other states do, and everything is far away. The state is as big as a third of the continental US, which means Alaskans have to drive further to get their gas than most people do in other states. Finally, because of the rugged terrain up there, everybody has big cars. If ANWR were opened for business, Alaskans might see a decrease in oil and gas prices or, at the very least, receive reimbursements because of the stipends. The people in Alaska overwhelmingly want it. “In my opinion, if they want to look at an oil well outside their back door, that’s their decision, not mine. I find that part of this argument persuasive.”

Reduce our dependence on foreign oil

The oil companies and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy, estimate that new oil from ANWR could lower the world price of oil by a minimum of .44 cents and as much as a whopping $1.44 per barrel but, that won’t take effect for 20 years. The EIA projection for oil production in the ANWR is 0.4 to 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030 and that amount would reduce our foreign oil dependence.

Oil companies are greedy and hoarding

Oil companies only have 70 million “offshore acres leases” remaining from a total 90 million; they are concerned they will run out of places to drill for oil in 3030 (yes, I meant 3030). Some Democrats also charge that oil companies are deliberately not drilling on the land to limit supply and drive up oil prices.

Oil companies prefer to drill in cold climates.

Huh?

I don’t have an answer but neither does Hot Flat Friedman

Thomas Friedman author of Hot Flat and Crowded doesn’t know about any wager because when interviewed on NPR about drilling in the North Slope to promote the burning of coal, oil and gas exclaimed loudly:

drill, drill – what am I missing here

drill, drill – what planet are they on?

it’s crazy, the Ohio senator actually voted against it (tax credits)

Pollution

Maybe President Bush wasn’t joking when, after rejecting the global climate change targets of the July 2008 G8 summit, he said, “Goodbye, from the world’s biggest polluter.” Maybe he covets and wants to retain that title?

“Give Us the ANWAR and Keep Shopping”-They Found They Can’t Have Both

[Essay at OpedNews in 2008]

Associated Press (AP) reported on September 13th, 2008 that the unprecedented rise in gas prices had brought a change to the American way of life that even a drop in oil prices below $100/barrel won’t erase. As AP put it, “Public transportation is in. Hummers are out. Frugality is in. Wastefulness is out.”

Apparently, the worst gas price hike has produced the worst-case scenario for the select group of people who raised the price of gasoline to almost $5.00/gallon, smug in their belief they could get Americans to give up their last Arctic wilderness while continuing to buy useless, wasteful consumer goods.

Two significant things happened recently after gas approached $5 a gallon and oil was selling for $142 a barrel:

• Retail sales fell in July as shoppers shunned autos and other big-ticket items. In spite of government stimulus payments to U.S. households, retail sales dipped 0.1 percent last month when a variety of economic woes including skyrocketing gas prices combined to blunt America’s shopping habits—habits which wreak havoc on the environment.

• August 14, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) signaled her willingness to consider opening up more coastal areas to oil and gas exploration. Just weeks before, Pelosi was resolved to block any votes to allow offshore drilling.

Once the environment’s last bastion of defense (Congress) had fallen, and gasoline prices rose so high, it tremendously curbed American buying habits, gasoline prices mysteriously came down almost a dollar and oil is now under $100 a barrel.

Really? Solely because a month ago we agreed to consider more drilling, oil drops by $45 a barrel? Is that possible?

No. It appears the price of gasoline stayed high too long. A $45/barrel drop in oil isn’t enough to fool anyone into thinking the “economy” is back to normal. You can’t cover up bank failures, home foreclosures, high unemployment and experts like Warren Buffett predicting major disruptions in financial markets.

Even with the recent drop in gas prices, Americans seem to have realized they can live comfortable lives by returning to a time when they valued stewardship, resourcefulness, and thrift…and that just might be good for everyone who has to live on this planet.

So the same select group of people who were betting on trashing the ANWR and the planet by getting the public to shop for billions of dollars of useless, non-recyclable consumer goods appear to be losing. As the AP press said, “Americans have changed; being frugal is the thing.” And that makes winners of the rest of us, for now. [End of my attempt at humor. (The same group are betting we will agree to nuke the well. Don’t let them!)]

Katherine Smith, PhD mandrell2010@gmail.com

Footnotes:

[1] Thank God the devastating 2010 Deepwater Horizon Spill has finally been capped. While the media focuses our attention on cleanup of 219 million gallons of crude oil the real doomsday trigger was that unleashed with the oil goes largely unnoticed. A catastrophic legacy that we leave behind for future generations, with far greater long term danger to life on Earth than the leaked oil, is the impacts of the leaked methane from the failed 2010 Deepwater Horizon Spill. Doomsday: How BP Gulf disaster may have triggered a ‘world-killing’ event by Dave Nocera

[2] I think it’s VERY important to compare what [Chairman Emeritus] Simmons is saying in the last video at this link with what Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist and host of Sci-Fi Science, is saying in the video at this link. It’s really not that hard to imagine what these lunatic oil people might end up doing especially if what Simmons is postulating is decided to be the only viable option to halt this out-of-control oil volcano! THIS IS TOTAL MADNESS!! Editorials : Those Crazy Cassiopaean’s

Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist. For most of his career, Jones was known mainly for his work on muon-catalyzed fusion. In the fall of 2006, amid controversy surrounding his work on the collapse of the World Trade Center (which Jones believes was as destroyed by controlled demolition during the September 11 attacks), he was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave from Brigham Young University. He retired on October 20, 2006 with the status of Professor Emeritus.

[3] On June 15, 2010, Barack Obama addresses the nation on the BP Oil Spill:

“The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years. But make no mistake: we will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long it takes. Tonight I’d like to lay out for you what our battle plan is going forward: what we’re doing to clean up the oil, what we’re doing to help our neighbors in the Gulf, and what we’re doing to make sure that a catastrophe like this never happens again.”

[4] Gulf Oil Spill Remediation website

[5] If “trashing the planet” was his military objective, our last President Bush was not stupid, but a brilliant commander-in-chief waging an all-out war on biodiversity, animals and rainforests. He wanted to drill in the ANWR to trash America’s last Arctic Wilderness. Sonar Testing is about torturing whales and dolphins. And the Border Fence that keeps everything out but illegal’s will disrupt an extraordinary source of biological diversity along the 2,000-mile long region.

Appendix B

The oil companies and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy, estimate that new oil from ANWR could lower the world price of oil by a minimum of .44 cents and as much as a whopping $1.44 per barrel but, that won’t take effect for 20 years. The EIA projection for oil production in the ANWR is 0.4 to 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030 and that amount would reduce our foreign oil dependence.

Chronology of the price of Gasoline and Oil

April 29, 2008 [Gasoline $3.89, Oil $113.86] (Gasoline is average regular gasoline in California (Consumer Reports), Oil is Spot Brent Crude (Energy Information Administration, official statistics from the U.S. Government))

President George W. Bush in his speech in the Rose garden

“Americans are concerned about energy prices, and I can understand why. The past 18 months, gas prices have gone up by $1.40 per gallon. I’ve repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems. Yet time after time, Congress chose to block them. They repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in Alaska National Wildlife Reserve ANWR.” Later the president says, “If you mention ANWR it means you don’t care about the environment. Well, I’m hoping now people, when they say “ANWR,” means you don’t care about the gasoline prices that people are paying”.

June 12-14 [Gasoline $4.43, Oil $132.11]

Zogy takes a poll about drilling offshore and the ANWR

June 26 [Gasoline $4.59, Oil $136.82]

Zogby poll Released. Three in four likely voters – 74 percent – support offshore drilling for oil in U.S. coastal waters and more than half (59 percent) also favor drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge

July 3 [Gasoline $4.55, Oil $143.95]

Makes for a depressing July 4th

July 14 [Gasoline $4.49, Oil $142.43]

Bush lifted a presidential moratorium on drilling for oil and natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf

July 16, 2008 [Gasoline $4.52, Oil $133.11]

the Federal Reserve reported holding $2,349 billion of US government paper in custody for central banks.

July 30, 2008 [Gasoline $4.32, Oil $122.46]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — President Bush called Wednesday for Congress to allow offshore oil drilling, citing an “urgent” need to reduce pressure on crude and gas prices.

President cites tough times for families in urging lawmakers to allow vote on bill to open ocean drilling. “American drivers are counting on Congress to lift the ban and so are American workers,” “I’ve lifted the ban, I’ve done my part,” Bush said. Bush said that high gas prices are cutting into consumers’ food and housing budgets. “The time for action is now, this is a difficult period for millions of American families,”

July 30, 2008 [Gasoline $4.32, Oil $122.46]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — As the nation struggles to meet its energy needs, a majority of Americans think offshore drilling for oil and natural gas is a good idea, according to according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday. The debate over offshore drilling has become an increasingly important political issue in the era of $4 a gallon gas. The bans prohibiting offshore drilling, which were put in place decades ago, are outdated and should be lifted, proponents say. But opponents argue that more drilling offshore could damage sensitive ecosystems.

Lifting the ban would send a “strong signal” to the oil futures market, which could help bring the price of crude down immediately, she said. (Is this possible, lifting a ban on drilling oil that would take 15 years to access could affect the price of oil in the next 7 days?)

August 1, 2008 [$4.36, Oil $124.16]

In some key battleground states, (like Florida) voters are shifting toward support of offshore drilling to reduce dependence on foreign oil and to ease those bug-eyed shocks at the pumps as the numbers keep moving upward,

August 5 [$4.21, Oil $116.50]

During his speech, Obama admitted he is no longer opposed to expanding offshore oil drilling if it is part of a broader energy plan. Sen. John McCain: “I call on Senator Obama to call on Congress to come back into town and come back to work. Democrat joining together: And a very vital part of that is nuclear power, and another vital part of that is offshore drilling. We have to drill here and drill now.”

August 7 [$4.23, Oil $116.94]

the Federal Reserve reported holding $2,401 billion, a 38.4% annual rate of growth.

August 12 [$4.16, Oil $108.98]

Democrats’ stance against offshore drilling has shifted more.

Pelosi’s radio remarks were the latest to hint that the energy debate in Congress is still evolving, and that Democrats are budging on the issue.

August 13 2008 [$4.22, Oil $111.33]

Retail sales fell in July, the weakest performance in five months, as shoppers shunned autos and other big-ticket items. The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that retail sales dipped 0.1 percent last month when a variety of economic woes combined to blunt the impact of billions of dollars in government stimulus payments to U.S. households. “Cautious and uncertain consumers are watching their wallets and with the back-to-school shopping season under way, that does not bode well for retailers,” said Joel Naroff, chief economist for Naroff Economic Advisors.

August 14, 2008 [$4.20, Oil $110.16]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaling her willingness to consider opening up more coastal areas to oil and gas exploration. Just weeks ago Pelosi seemed resolved to block any votes to allow offshore drilling.

Conclusion:

Once the last holdout Pelosi signaled her willingness to drill the markets responded. The U.S. Energy Information Administration says it would take about 20 years for increased offshore drilling to have an effect on world oil prices, and even then it would be a small one. To step up domestic drilling now when we wouldn’t see the results until 2030 would be like investing in steamboats after the invention of the nuclear submarine. Therefore there is no other conclusion other than the Administration wants to drill in the most environmentally sensitive places on the planet. [End of Appendix B]

Appendix C

Normally I don’t recommend those “take action”- campaigns: the ones that tell us, it’s not too late, click-here to importune our “elected”- representatives with emails and faxes.

But the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf is different.

The inconvenient truth for our elected representatives, their families and staff who live in the Gulf states is that this disaster will affect them, they need a fighting chance to know if and when this perfect storm will hit and can get out of the way.

And for those of us who don’t live in the path of this disaster we will be affected as well.

A disaster of this magnitude will have an impact on everything we take for granted on a daily basis, food, shelter, energy and social order.

So go ahead and email, fax and phone, this is one email campaign that might just work.

Here is a sample draft that you can customize with your personal concerns.

President Obama: The BP Oil disaster in the Gulf has the makings of a perfect storm.

The time for bold, decisive leadership is now.

1. We will not tolerate any nuclear option to cap the Oil spill in the gulf.
2. Demand BP release the Mud Log Data.
3. Begin to implement proven mitigation technology NOW.

Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [City, State ZIP]

Start with the website on How to Answer President Obama’s Call to Action to Fix the Gulf Coast Spill and then Contact The U.S. Department of Energy

The Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, By Email: The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov

By Phone: 202-586-5000, By Fax 202-586-4403

By the Website contact form

Follow up by Contacting the Elected Officials where you live

If we work together we can make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans.

Related Posts:

• Paper Money Madness: Inflation-Fueled Economic Growth Does Not Indicate That An Economy Is Getting Stronger Published on 01-26-2011 Email To Friend Print Version
• On The Way To Copenhagen We Added A World Food Crisis
• The Future For Most Americans: Pathetic Jobs, Bad Debts And A Crappy Economy
• Ex-CIA Phil Giraldi…The Proper Place for Americans
• Is This What The Whole Country Is Going To Look Like After The Economy Collapses? Published on 01-26-2011 Email To Friend Print Version

Organised crime gangs are using carbon emissions trading schemes as fronts for money-laundering, experts warned Friday. The experts who attended a meeting of the Asia Pacific Money Laundering Group (APG) said crime syndicates are resorting to new methods to hide their illegal proceeds.

Organised crime gangs are using carbon emissions trading schemes as fronts for money-laundering, experts warned Friday.

The experts who attended a meeting of the Asia Pacific Money Laundering Group (APG) said crime syndicates are resorting to new methods to hide their illegal proceeds.

One “issue that we’ve looked at closely is money laundering associated with carbon emissions trading schemes”, APG executive secretary Gordon Hook told a news conference after the five-day meeting.

Hook did not elaborate on how crime syndicates were using carbon emissions trading schemes to launder money.

Emissions trading schemes place a limit on the amount of greenhouse gaspollution which companies can produce, forcing heavy polluters to buy credits from companies that pollute less — thereby creating financial incentives to fight global warming.John Harrison, a security analyst at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, told AFP that the carbon emissions trading market is relatively new and crime gangs are taking advantage of loopholes in regulation. “They will use new markets to try and launder their money, and particularly if these new markets are not well regulated yet,” he said. “It’s not surprising.”

APG is an international organisation that is closely affiliated with the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

Hook said the region’s money-laundering activities had wider, international connections.

“More and more money laundering and terrorist financing we are seeing are in reality transnational crimes so the web of international connections and international cooperation is extremely important,” he said.

APG co-chairman Tony Negus, who is also the commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, said the ease of movement and communications have made the fight against organised crime more difficult.

“These days syndicates move across jurisdictions with ease and across the world with ease with increased travel and increased electronic transfers,” he said.

Related Posts:

• States of Emergency
• Climate Change or Hot Air?
• Inventor of economy-crashing Credit Default Swaps is an architect of Cap and Trade’s carbon derivatives
• Environment boss wants to put carbon tax on driving, heating and holidays
• Royal Dutch Shell ‘played role in activist executions’

The folly of O’s oil-spill ‘fix’

President Obama has a solution to the Gulf oil spill: $7-a-gallon gas.

That’s a Harvard University study’s estimate of the per-gallon price of the president’s global-warming agenda. And Obama made clear this week that this agenda is a part of his plan for addressing the Gulf mess.

So what does global-warming legislation have to do with the oil spill?

Good question, because such measures wouldn’t do a thing to clean up the oil or fix the problems that led to the leak.

The answer can be found in Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s now-famous words, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste — and what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

Related Posts:

• The Gulf Oil Disaster Will Not Change U.S. Energy Policy
• Russia’s Scientists: Toxic Rain From Oil Spill Will Ravage America
• Why Joseph Biden will be the Next Vice President of the United
  States (Oct 2008)
• An Open Letter to President Obama; Why Is Corporate America Destroying Our Economy?
• Anatomy Of The Plot To Kill The Nation

I’m waiting for actual photos of the event from the official photographer, but for now I’ll make do with what can be found on the Internet. For those who don’t know, the Oxford Union is the top of the food chain for scholarly debate. This is a significant win.

The Oxford Union Debate Chamber – image from Wikimedia

Founded in 1823 at the University of Oxford, but maintaining a separate charter from the University, The Oxford Union is host to some of the most skillful debates in the world. Many eminent scholars and personalities have come and either debated or delivered speeches in the chamber. Monckton was invited as part of the formal Thursday debate.

It is described as follows:

The Union is the world’s most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 182 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.

Here is a view inside from a previous debate:

The Debate Chamber – Photo by: Rajiv Dabas

From the SPPI Blog, an account of the debate:

Oxford Union Debate on Climate Catastrophe

Source:  SPPI

Army of Light and Truth 135, Forces of Darkness 110

For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that “global warming” is or could become a global crisis. The only previous defeat for climate extremism among an undergraduate audience was at St. Andrew’s University, Scotland, in the spring of 2009, when the climate extremists were defeated by three votes.

Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world’s premier debating society, carried the motion “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110. The debate was sponsored by the Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC.

Serious observers are interpreting this shock result as a sign that students are now impatiently rejecting the relentless extremist propaganda taught under the guise of compulsory environmental-studies classes in British schools, confirming opinion-poll findings that the voters are no longer frightened by “global warming” scare stories, if they ever were.

When the Union’s president, Laura Winwood, announced the result in the Victorian-Gothich Gladstone Room, three peers cheered with the undergraduates, and one peer drowned his sorrows in beer.

Lord Lawson of Blaby, Margaret Thatcher’s former finance minister, opened the case for the proposition by saying that the economic proposals put forward by the UN’s climate panel and its supporters did not add up. It would be better to wait and see whether the scientists had gotten it right. It was not sensible to make expensive spending commitments, particularly at a time of great economic hardship, when the effectiveness of the spending was gravely in doubt and when it might do more harm than good.

At one point, Lord Lawson was interrupted by a US student, who demanded to know what was his connection with the Science and Public Policy Institute, and what were the Institute’s sources of funding. Lord Lawson was cheered when he said he neither knew nor cared who funded the Institute.

Ms. Zara McGlone, Secretary of the Oxford Union, opposed the motion, saying that greenhouse gases had an effect [they do, but it is very small]; that the precautionary principle required immediate action, just in case and regardless of expense [but one must also bear in mind the cost of the precautions themselves, which can and often do easily exceed the cost of inaction]; that Bangladesh was sinking beneath the waves [a recent study by Prof. Niklas Moerner shows that sea level in Bangladesh has actually fallen]; that the majority of scientists believed “global warming” was a problem [she offered no evidence for this]; and that “irreversible natural destruction” would occur if we did nothing [but she did not offer any evidence].

Mr. James Delingpole, a blogger for the leading British conservative national newspaper The Daily Telegraph, seconded the proposition, saying that – politically speaking – the climate extremists had long since lost the argument. The general public simply did not buy the scare stories any more. The endless tales of Biblical disasters peddled by the alarmist faction were an unwelcome and now fortunately failed recrudescence of dull, gray Puritanism. Instead of hand-wringing and bed-wetting, we should celebrate the considerable achievements of the human race and start having fun.

Lord Whitty, a Labor peer from the trades union movement and, until recently, Labor’s Environment Minister in the Upper House, said that the world’s oil supplies were rapidly running out [in fact, record new finds have been made in the past five years]; that we needed to change our definition of economic growth to take into account the value lost when we damaged the environment [it is artificial accounting of this kind that has left Britain as bankrupt as Greece after 13 years of Labor government]; that green jobs created by governments would help to end unemployment [but Milton Friedman won his Nobel Prize for economics by demonstrating that every artificial job created at taxpayers’ expense destroys two real jobs in the wealth-producing private sector]; that humans were the cause of most of the past century’s warming [there is no evidence for that: the case is built on speculation by programmers of computer models]; that temperature today was at its highest in at least 40 million years [in fact, it was higher than today by at least 12.5 F° for most of the past 550 million years]; and that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic [no one has asked them].

Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic. Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true. Under further pressure from Lord Monckton, Lord Whitty conceded that the figure should perhaps be 92%. Lord Monckton asked: “And your reference is?” Lord Whitty was unable to reply. Hon. Members began to join in, jeering “Your reference? Your reference?” Lord Whitty sat down looking baffled.

Lord Leach of Fairford, whom Margaret Thatcher appointed a Life Peer for his educational work, spoke third for the proposition. He said that we no longer knew whether or not there had been much “global warming” over the 20^th century, because the Climategate emails had exposed the terrestrial temperature records as defective. In any event, he said, throwing good money after bad on various alternative-energy boondoggles was unlikely to prove profitable in the long term and would ultimately do harm.

Mr. Rajesh Makwana, executive director of “Share The World’s Resources”, speaking third for the opposition, said that climate change was manmade [but he did not produce any evidence for that assertion]; that CO2 emissions were growing at 3% a year [but it is concentrations, not emissions, that may in theory affect climate, and concentrations are rising at a harmless 0.5% a year]; that the UN’s climate panel had forecast a 7 F° “global warming” for the 21^st century [it’s gotten off to a bad start, with a cooling of 0.2 F° so far]; and that the consequences of “global warming” would be dire [yet, in the audience, sat Mr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, whose landmark paper of 2008 had established that not one of 539 scientific papers on “global climate change” provided any evidence whatsoever that “global warming” would be catastrophic].

Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the UK, concluded the case for the proposition. He drew immediate laughter and cheers when he described himself as “Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, scholar, philanthropist, wit, man about town, and former chairman of the Wines and Spirits Committee of this honourable Society”. At that point his cummerbund came undone. He held it up to the audience and said, “If I asked this House how long this cummerbund is, you might telephone around all the manufacturers and ask them how many cummerbunds they made, and how long each type of cummerbund was, and put the data into a computer model run by a zitty teenager eating too many doughnuts, and the computer would make an expensive guess. Or you could take a tape-measure and” – glaring at the opposition across the despatch-box – “measure it!” [cheers].

Lord Monckton said that real-world measurements, as opposed to models, showed that the warming effect of CO2 was a tiny fraction of the estimates peddled by the UN’s climate panel. He said that he would take his lead from Lord Lawson, however, in concentrating on the economics rather than the science. He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about “global warming”, they would care to tell him – to two places of decimals and one standard deviation – the UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. An Hon. Member interrupted: “And your reference is?” Lord Monckton replied: “IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2.” [cheers]. He concluded that shutting down the entire global economy for a whole year, with all the death, destruction, disaster, disease and distress that that would cause, would forestall just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 Kelvin or Celsius degrees of “global warming”, so that total economic shutdown for 41 years would prevent just 1 K of warming. Adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective.

Mr. Mike Mason, founder and managing director of “Climate Care”, concluded for the opposition. He said that the proposition were peculiar people, and that Lord Monckton was more peculiar than most, in that he was not a real Lord. Lord Monckton, on a point of order, told Mr. Mason that the proposition had avoided personalities and that if Mr. Mason were unable to argue other than ad hominem he should “get out”. [cheers] Mr. Mason then said that we had to prepare for climate risks [yes, in both directions, towards cooler as well as warmer]; and that there was a “scientific consensus” [but he offered no evidence for the existence of any such consensus, still less for the notion that science is done by consensus].

The President thanked the speakers and expressed the Society’s gratitude to the Science and Public Policy Institute for sponsoring the debate. Hon. Members filed out of the Debating Chamber, built to resemble the interior of the House of Commons, and passed either side of the brass division-pole at the main door – Ayes to the right 135, Noes to the left 110. Motion carried.

Related Posts:

• PREDICTED IN MARCH 2010: Staging bin Laden’s ‘Death’
• Great balls of fire over Canada: NASA investigates
• Placebo fraud rocks the very foundation of modern medical science; thousands of clinical trials invalidated – Mike Adams
• Matt Simmons “Apparently” Drowned At His Home Sunday Night
• BP Admits That – If It Tries to Cap the Leak – the Whole Well May Blow

Al Gore is co-founder of an investment management firm that is now the fifth-largest shareholder in the Chicago Climate Exchange. AP View Enlarged Image

Cap-And-Trade: While senators froth over Goldman Sachs and derivatives, a climate trading scheme being run out of the Chicago Climate Exchange would make Bernie Madoff blush. Its trail leads to the White House.

Lost in the recent headlines was Al Gore’s appearance Monday in Denver at the annual meeting of the Council of Foundations, an association of the nation’s philanthropic leaders.

“Time’s running out (on climate change),” Gore told them. “We have to get our act together. You have a unique role in getting our act together.”

Gore was right that foundations will play a key role in keeping the climate scam alive as evidence of outright climate fraud grows, just as they were critical in the beginning when the Joyce Foundation in 2000 and 2001 provided the seed money to start the Chicago Climate Exchange. It started trading in 2003, and what it trades is, essentially, air. More specifically perhaps, hot air.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) advertises itself as “North America’s only cap-and-trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.” Barack Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002 when the CCX startup grants were issued. As president, pushing cap-and-trade is one of his highest priorities. Now isn’t that special?

Few Americans have heard of either entity. The Joyce Foundation was originally the financial nest egg of a widow whose family had made millions in the now out-of-favor lumber industry.

After her death, the foundation was run by philanthropists who increasingly dedicated their giving to liberal causes, including gun control, environmentalism and school changes.

Currently, CCX members agree to a voluntary but legally binding agreement to regulate greenhouse gases.

The CCX provides the mechanism in trading the very pollution permits and carbon offsets the administration’s cap-and-trade proposals would impose by government mandate.

Thanks to Fox News’ Glenn Beck, we have learned a lot about CCX, not the least of which is that its founder, Richard Sandor, says he knew Obama well back in the day when the Joyce Foundation awarded money to the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University, where Sandor was a research professor.

Sandor estimates that climate trading could be “a $10 trillion dollar market.” It could very well be, if cap-and-trade measures like Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer are signed into law, making energy prices skyrocket, and as companies buy and sell permits to emit those six “greenhouse” gases.

Read Full Article Here…



Related Posts:

• States of Emergency
• Bin Laden Blasts US for Climate Change
• Poor nations push for ‘New World Order’ in Copenhagen
• Bikini Clad Miss Earth Contestants Pushing Global Warming Propaganda
• Global Warming Accelerating While the U.S. Backpedals

Britain created the modern environmental movement from roots of population control and eugenics ‘the lowest strata of people are reproducing too fast’ …’long unemployment should be a grounds for sterilization’.

UNESCO ( United Nations Educational Social and Cultural Organization ) Its Purpose and its Philosphy – Julian Huxley 1946 -’Thus even though it is quite true that radical eugenics policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible it will be important for UNESCO to see that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable”

Related Posts:

• The Population Reduction Agenda For Dummies
• An Open Letter to President Obama; Why Is Corporate America Destroying Our Economy?
• Mexico’s war on America
• Chemtrail Aerosol Assaults Continue
• The Monsanto Connection

Mr. Green, how is your latest rant at OpedNews, “Did Obama Sandbag His Own Health Care Bill?” different than all of the other rants at OpedNews?

“So Barack Obama got his change. Other people can even believe in it if they want. I regret to say I remain unimpressed” A mobilization of the huge mob of motivated and excited citizens who put Obama in the White House last year in the name of genuine change never occurred.”?? David Michael Green

[Excerpt from The Bank of the Fed is Closed…Forever]

In an effort to explain our escalating financial crisis, an American Nightmare (an Environmental Dream), the pundits including our Professor David Michael Green who wrote, How to Squander the Presidency in One Year are focusing their angst on the 44th POTUS, who might very well go down as the single most inept president in all of American history.

Barack Obama is not inept, greedy or stupid and he isn’t one of “us”.

He rose from obscurity to power with his top economics adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the co-founder of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission and he travels in the same circles as other members of the super-secret Skull & Bones Society at Yale University, who pretend to be running for president every four years.

The decision to have Obama preside over the greatest financial calamity since the Great Depression was made five years ago; the November election was a formality. (Why Joseph Biden will be the Next Vice President of the United States, recently in the top 10 at OpedNews but if the link is dead, footnote [2] has additional sites)

To believe otherwise, is to ignore the Bradley/Palin effect and the decision by John McCain to wait until his concession speech to shed the image of a nasty “grumpy old man.”

In September 2008, when the Obama campaign seemed to be slumping and their candidate’s long-standing lead in the polls had evaporated, the senator’s supporters openly worried that a potential victory might be slipping away. Then, providence joined the campaign: The failure of the giant investment bank Lehman Brothers followed by a global financial meltdown in the month of October.

And, “speaking of change”, escalating the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and his policies on Guantanamo, state secrets, renditions, executive power, bail-outs and the stimulus packages are for the most part identical to those of George W. Bush.

However, the policies at the Federal Reserve have changed inexplicably, monumentally and historically:

As of October 2008, the men behind the Federal Reserve, all connected to the House of Rothschild, are no longer giving up what’s left of their real wealth so the middle class can live the American Dream, a nightmare for the planet.

Brian Deese, special assistant to president Obama for economic policy, in his first government position, shuffles back and forth from the West Wing to the Treasury Department rewriting the rules of American “capitalism” as he dismantles the US Housing, Automobile Industry and the American Dream. (The 31-Year-Old in Charge of Dismantling G.M., David E. Sanger)

Deese’s First Rule: Withdraw Credit and Liquidity:

Causing spending to fall even further, forcing companies to cut back on inventory and staff – Creating even more unemployment…263,000 jobs eliminated bringing the total to 39 million Americans who are no longer working or looking for work. (The September Employment Rate is 90%)

And that’s before the recently announced “planned three-year budget freeze on government discretionary spending.” [End of Excerpt: The Bank of the Fed is Closed…Forever]

OpEdNews Bold and Daring: The Way Progressive News Should Be

Should The Progressive News always Be, about “what the profane (middle class) want, deserve and aren’t getting because those Robinhood barons behind the federal reserve aren’t giving it to them?

“a giant gift to massive predatory corporations who are as far removed from pursuing the public interest as regressive politicians are from the human genome.” David Michael Green

Why is this different than the thousands of other articles at Opednews or their sister site The Huffington Post?

Maybe it’s the smoke from Mt. Vesuvius that keeps Arianna Huffington and the financial community from seeing that the economic collapse has nothing to do with the Fed “missing” the warning signs leading up to the October meltdown.

Arianna said it’s time to “recognize the natural order of things: that is, the very people responsible for the economic collapse not only are still in power, but are still lining their pockets with outrageous windfalls — courtesy of the American taxpayer.”

Predatory, Massive, Outrageous Windfalls?

[Excerpt 2008 Financial Collapse: The Greatest Calamity The World Has Ever Known] The people responsible for the October collapse, our Federal Reserve, also get credit for the windfalls of “Monopoly Money”, created out of thin air, which financed our consumer society.

They are the private credit monopoly of rich and predatory moneylenders that “prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves.” [3]

For the Benefit of the “middle class” is a more accurate statement.

Those predatory moneylenders gave the middle class the highest standard of living in the world.

Recall when the American economy appeared headed into a recession at the end of the dot-com bubble, the Federal Reserve began slashing short- term interest rates until they reached a historically low one percent. The move re-inflated the economy by allowing homeowners to extract $750 billion in equity from their homes—up from $106 billion in 1996—and apply the dollars toward a multitude of consumer items and other credit card debt.

As interest rates plummeted and alleged home equity artificially soared, buyers were able to afford first and second homes, and they did it by taking out risky mortgages with “teaser rates” similar to those offered by the credit card industry. Even as interest rates adjusted upward, the sponsoring banks used complicated financial derivatives to resell the risky mortgages as “asset-backed paper.”

As housing prices edged downward and mortgage rates inched upward, the recession was put on hold with the help of an astonishing 10 to 12 credit card offers per month being delivered to some consumer mailboxes. The credit card companies issued 1.5 billion cards to 158 million cardholders and promised an improbable zero percent interest—some deals for up to 18 months. (Similar to mortgage debt, the credit card debt is put into pools also known as derivatives that are then resold to investment houses, other banks and institutional investors.)

Thank those rich and predatory moneylenders for the short-term interest rates and the liquidity that allowed the debt to be pooled, sold and resold.

But blame them because our hyper-shopping has wreaked havoc on the planet.

[End of Excerpt 2008 Financial Collapse: The Greatest Calamity The World Has Ever Known]

“Competition and a free market is the last thing industries want when the lobby in Washington for antitrust exemptions, subsidies, tariffs and other trade barriers.” David Michael Green

[More from The Bank of the Fed is Closed…Forever will help you understand Professor Green’s Competition statement above]

Capitalism never made sense

The ideal and the principle of the market economy of Capitalism was never fulfilled. What is called capitalism is a distorted, twisted and deformed system of increasingly limited market relationships as well as market processes hampered and repressed by state controls and regulations. And overlaying this entire system are the ideologies of 18th-century mercantilism, 19th-century socialism, and 20th-century welfare statism.

Professor Ebeling, the Ludwig von Mises professor of Economics at Hillsdale College, understood something was wrong when he wrote: “the perverse development and evolution of historical capitalism, the institutions necessary for a truly free-market economy have been either undermined or prevented from emerging.”

But when he claimed, “it is the principles and the meaning of a free-market economy that must be rediscovered” in order to overcome the burden of historical capitalism and save liberty, he should have written that principles must be rediscovered in order to prevent the planet from attempted murder (ecocide).

American “capitalism” and our consumer economy never made economic, environmental or common sense—unless the goal was ecocide.

Capitalism and a not-so-free market economy based on consumer products, that is, products we are manipulated to want, not need, was never sustainable. Consumers consume…the resources of the planet.
[End More from The Bank of the Fed is Closed…Forever]

“So much for all the complete bullshit rhetoric about the free market and competition.” David Michael Green

[Excerpt from The Myth of the "Free" Enterprise Economic System will help you understand “free market.” The link to my article is at OpedNews, but in case the link is dead you can still read about The Myth of "Free" Enterprise Economic System at The Market Oracle]

Free enterprise, also called free market, is an economy governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy.

Command economy is basically a slave enterprise where supply and price are regulated by the government rather than market forces.

The only thing I will agree with about the “law of supply and demand” is that supply at a downward-manipulated price, can create demand.

Downward manipulation is an uneconomic aberration first discovered in the precious metals market by the noted silver analyst, Ted Butler.

We are conditioned to believe free enterprise supply and demand would lead to inflated prices so the greedy corporations can make more money, but Ted Butler’s research in the silver market concludes the opposite.

The beneficiaries of this type of manipulation are the consumers because corporations can sell their products affordably and still make a profit.

Butler’s investigation has identified JP Morgan Chase, one of the founding members of the Federal Reserve, as the prime suspect, in the “ongoing intentional, not accidental” great crime of keeping the price of commodities low so the middle class can afford the American dream, a nightmare for the planet (The Real Story, Theodore Butler, Silver But No Silver Lining).

I’ll get right to the point: McDonalds in the 1950s made a profit by selling a product for less than the competition, but a not-so-invisible hand produced cheap calories in great abundance so Ray “Crock” could sell a cheeseburger, fries and a large Coke for a price equal to less than an hour of labor at the minimum wage — and still make a profit (Farmer in Chief, Michael Pollan).

You don’t eat the hamburger at McDonalds because it’s a dollar: It’s a dollar to get you to eat it, because “the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future—deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities and the spread of disease” (World Watch).
[End of Excerpt from The Myth of the "Free" Enterprise Economic System]

Warning: Reading the following may be hazardous to your mental health. The material herein has caused readers to experience Cognitive Dissonance (CD).

CD is the discomfort felt at the discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation that contradicts a strongly held belief system – It’s that queasy feeling that rises in your gut and screams, I DON’T BELIEVE THAT! Because, if you accepted the new information, you would have to admit you been ”had,” or ”conned,” in this case into shopping for stuff to trash the planet.

The benefit of the new information is that the world around you will finally make sense. Hot, flat, and crowded Thomas L. Friedman will finally know what planet George W. Bush is on. Bush lost the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq, but is winning the war on the environment.

At this point, it is advantageous to consider the efforts of writer Andrew Hitchcock, author of The History of the House of Rothschild (Opednews Editors rely on Wikipedia for their information on The House of Rothschild [4]).

[Excerpt from Liberté, Enlightenté, Entitleté, coming soon to a website near you]

“The Rothschilds have been in control of the world for a very long time, their tentacles reaching into many aspects of our daily lives, and are the hidden hand behind all the social cataclysms in history”: The Revolutions in America, France, Russia, the Opium Wars and the Boxer Rebellion, also known as the Chinese Revolution that ended the Manchu Dynasty.

Rothschild’s Revolutions took the real wealth of the world from the Monarchs (Kings, Queens, Emperors, Empresses) in Europe, China, Russia, America and transferred it in theory to the profane (common man).

The “transfers” under the guise of “isms”, (i.e. Communism, Socialism, Capitalism) were initially republican form of governments “of and by and for the people” later converted, according to John Adams, second US president, a “democracy”, the “tyranny of the majority.“

The vast accumulation of wealth and financial and natural resources of the House of Rothschild Global Financial Empire is legendary.

“And there was no news more precious than the (predetermined) outcome at Waterloo…”

Considered the turning point in history, exploiting the Battle of Waterloo gave the Rothschild family complete financial control of Europe, and soon after, the world.

England would set up a new Bank of England, with Nathan Mayer Rothschild in control.

According to one source, at the conclusion of the revolutions in the late 1800s and when the planet was still in ecological balance, “it was estimated the House of Rothschild controlled almost half the wealth of the world.” [5]

That would be real wealth: raw materials, commodities, copper, iron ore, petroleum, lead, copper, silver and gold.

Were these revolutions for profit?

Not unless you believe the Rothschilds were “clueless”.

Since the revolutions they have exchanged their real wealth for about $500 trillion of the fiat currency (Monopoly Money) they printed (Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité Providence, Miracle or What Really Happened)

History according to the Rothschilds, The Powers That Be (TPTB), originates in a square-mile sovereign state located in the heart of greater London.

Until October 2008, TPTB were guilty of the great ongoing war crimes that pried open the doors of the Third World. A criminal enterprise that converted the wealth of those countries into houses, cars, RVs, TVs and DVDs, “the stuff” that former members of the Third Estate (serfs and slaves) living in the East-West consumed in order to experience unprecedented prosperity: A nightmare for the planet.

The same “stuff” that, according to a massive United Nations report by the GEO4, put all of humanity at serious risk due to “the dangers of climate change, water scarcity, dwindling fish stocks and the pressures on the land and the extinction of species.”

Rothschild policies include “total ruthlessness” and “For the last one hundred and fifty years, the history of the House of Rothschild has been to an amazing degree the backstage history of Western Europe…. The overwhelming success of the Rothschild’s lay in their willingness to do what had to be done.” (“The Rothschild’s”, Frederic Morton)

As a professor of political science at Hofstra University I am flummoxed when I read:

“We as a society find ourselves, yet once again, crafting legislation to service the greedy few rather than the hundreds of millions of ordinary folk just trying to get by.” David Michael Green

Are you saying you don’t know the difference between a constitutional republic and the vilest form of government there is?

Shelby Foote, notable historian of the Civil War, didn’t believe that government “of and by and for the people” (A republic) would have perished from the earth if our beloved President Lincoln wasn’t “totally ruthless” when he was willing to slaughter 620,000 Americans to end our right of self determination. Then we became “The vilest form of Government there is, democracy”, Thomas Paine.

The history that has been intentionally left out of our textbooks supports a prima facie case that the House of Rothschild orchestrated the Revolutions to create the middle class (consumers) for the purpose of trashing the planet. (Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité Providence, Miracle or What Really Happened)

Our last President Bush, connected to the House of Rothschild Global Financial Empire, was deadly serious when, after rejecting the global climate change targets of the July 2008 G8 summit, he said, “Goodbye, from the (then) world’s biggest polluter.” [6]

“The obvious, glaring, 800 pound gorilla in the room is that we do health care as an industry in America, for the purpose of profiting investors and corporate managers, not for purposes of making people well. … genuine villains who either for greed, power or spite have stood in the way of literally saving some 45,000 lives per year never happened.” David Michael Green

My question to you, Professor Green, is when did we as former serfs and slaves, have the right to get cur-ed? Or for that matter get fed, clothed and car-ed?

[More from Liberté, Enlightenté, Entitleté]

The middle class, afflicted with “The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement” (The American Dream)

Throughout the last 200 years the profane rant the same mantra:

Instead of meeting the needs of the people: the private credit monopoly of rich and predatory money-lenders are preying upon the people for the benefit of themselves.

We the people (Serfs, servants and slaves) are not only entitled to be fed, clothed and car-ed but our civil rights include being cur-ed: We are entitled to health care too!

Preoccupied with expanding our basic rights, we don’t want to know:

Why are we (in the East-West) so rich at the expense of them, that are so poor (in the North-South)? The Question of Questions

Because if we did, we might realize we have been ”had,” or ”conned,” into shopping for stuff to trash the planet.

Then we would be growing our own food, instead of sitting around Starbucks with our outsized sense of entitlement wondering if our ego will be satisfied with a new car and trying to decide if an SUV or station wagon will make us look fat or if an SUV is a fat station wagon.

There are only three possibilities why the Rothschilds put the planet at the “unknown points of no return” and the first two make no sense:

1. TPTB are inept, clueless or just “stupid” because since 1910 the House of Rothschild and the evil robber barons behind our Federal Reserve have exchanged their real wealth for $600 trillion of fiat currency (monopoly money) they printed so former members of the Third Estate (serfs and slaves) could have houses, cars, RVs, TVs and DVDs—the “stuff” which put the planet, at the “unknown points of no return”.
2. TPTB are really benevolent and wanted their former serfs, servants and slaves to have the highest standard of living for the last 100 years and didn’t know the planet would be in “dire environmental straits because humanity’s footprint [it’s environmental demand] is 21.9 hectares per person while the Earth’s biological capacity is, on average, only 15.7 ha/person.”

We passed the “unknown points of no return” because The House of Rothschild, in a metaphysical war with mother-earth (Gaea), until October 2008, were using humans to weaken the planet with environmental damage and pollution.

Should their plan succeed, TPTB believe, they will attain immortality in a period known as the Millennium, a thousand years of peace, plenty and paradise on Earth in a New World Order for the House of Rothschild, the Bilderbergers, the CFR and other secret societies (An Ominous Drilling Sign for the Truth).

[Note: The Senior Editors at Opednews are concerned the Internet Police may want to suppress this post. Readers return to this article and if the comment is missing please repost from the following links…, OpedNews loves its readers.]

Robert Singer writes for The Market Oracle and The Peoples Voice. (http://twitter.com/rds2301)

If you make people think they’re thinking [about The Way Progressive News Should Be], they’ll love you; but if you really make them think, they’ll hate you.”– Don Marquis

Footnotes:

[1] Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Did-Obama-Sandbag-His-Own-by-David-Michael-Gree-100404-924.html

[2] Why Joseph Biden will be the Next Vice President of the United States (Oct 2008) at dprogram

Why Joseph Biden will be the Next Vice President of the United States (Oct 2008) at Waronyou

[3] Congressman Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Committee, speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, June 10, 1932.

[4] Mon, February 22, 2010 9:47:16 AM From: Rob Kall To: Robert Singer

Subject: some feedback for your article in the queue

[Note: Feedback is on an article widely published and can be found at The MarketOracle, 19 Feb 2010 - Geographic Determinism, The Question of Questions. The editors at The Market Oracle don’t use Wikipedia to get their information about The House of Rothschild. The essay received a gold star and is not classified as a conspiracy theory.]

First feedback for your article. Here’s the text of one reviewer. I suggest you start off with shorter articles that cover one issue. And leave out the conspiracy theory stuff. It will be far more persuasive. If you are only interested in persuading conspiracy theorists and anti-semites, stay on your current path, but also expect articles to be rejected.

Review of The Question of Questions by an Editor that gets his information from Wikipedia:
That’s one hack of a disjointed, smorgasbord article. Everything from hemp to the Knights Templar to the House of Rothschild.

I should note that he obviously hasn’t done much reading about early humans
and mass extinctions across the globe. Long before agriculture or
industrialization, groups as early humans systematically wiped out virtually
all of the mega-fauna on every continent, so they certainly were not
peacefully coexisting with all of nature.

While he may make some good points, in general the article is disorganized
and unfocused. At bare minimum I would ask for a complete rewrite with much
more attention to continuity and sticking to the point. As it is, the
writing is terrible.

By the way, the House of Rothschild, which he blames for all wars and the
destruction of the planet, is of German-Jewish descent. See the Wikipedia conspiracy theory excerpt below.

Conspiracy theories FROM Wikipedia a trusted source of Information (LOL)

I hope you are grateful that someone took the time to read and write up this editorial feedback. Rob Kall

[5] The Power Of The Rothschilds By Fritz Springmeier (Excerpt – Bloodlines of the Illuminati, The History of the House of Rothschild by Andrew Hitchcock

[6] China is now the world’s biggest polluter, Meat, Milk and Motors: The New China Syndrome by Robert Singer.

Related Posts:

• The Bank of the Fed is Closed…Forever
• 2008 Financial Collapse: The Greatest Calamity The World Has Ever
  Known
• Why Joseph Biden will be the Next Vice President of the United
  States (Oct 2008)
• Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité – Providence, Miracle or What Really Happened
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days